Talk:United States House of Representatives/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Headline text

I felt that the section that said the House of Representatives was created by the Connecticut Compromise was poorly worded and reasoned. If you look at the calendar from the Constitutional Convention, a bicameral legislature was created well before the argument about Senate representation took place. It was voted early on that the lower house would have proportional representation too.

Finally, saying the House was created as a result of the Connecticut Compromise is confusing proximate and ultimate causation. There was always a consensus for a bicameral house. (The New Jersey Plan was really a bargaining position by the small states)luiyfliyfliyg

Also, it's dubious to say that the Founding Fathers wanted an equal vote Senate. The historical record demonstrates that, rather, they accepted an equal vote Senate. Prior to the publication of the NJ plan, the states actually voted for a Senate with proportional representation. When the states revoted on the issue, the states that voted for equality represented fewer people than the states that wanted per capita representation.

Moreover, no major Founding Father (Franklin, Hamilton, Madison, Washington) wanted equality either. See History of the United States Senate Dinopup 21:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the anonymous user's changes should be undone. He subtracted much from the article. 1/10/2005

"Gentlewoman"?

This is from the article:

A member who wishes to give a one-minute speech is asked by the Speaker: "For what purpose does the gentleman [gentlewoman] from [state] arise?"

Is a Congresswoman actually called a "gentlewoman," and not a "lady"? That sounds strange. Funnyhat 05:36, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A quick check of the Congressional Record confirms that "gentlewoman" is indeed used. GreenLocust 05:46, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anyone who's spent any time watching C-SPAN, the noncommercial television network that broadcasts proceedings of the House and the Senate, will recognize (however regretfully) that many members of Congress will also use the term "gentlelady," though "gentlewoman" is more common. I'd bet a fair amount of money that most female members of Congress avoid either term. — OtherDave 13:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Male representatives have been referred to as "gentleman" in floor debate forever, and "gentlewoman" is the closest female equivalent, however clunky or archaic it may sound. As a former staffer for a Congresswoman, I wish they'd go with "the Representative from..." for everyone.JTRH 01:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

"Gentle-Lady" is also common. Travis T. Cleveland (talk) 00:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Old committees

In the House Rules Manual it gives some of the history of committees that I was considering adding. Should articles be put up under the name of former committees since abolished or should this information go under the present committees and redirects placed under the former names? PedanticallySpeaking 18:39, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Carl Albert's Precedent?

In 1973, House Speaker Carl Albert ,notified the Nation that ,should President Nixon resign before the confirmation of Vice President Ford. He (Albert) would not assume the Presidency ,but only the powers & duties as Acting president, until Ford was confirmed. Question: Constitionally (under the 1947 Act of Presidential Sucession),couldn't have the president pro-tempore of the Senate, assume the Presidency if Albert were reluctant. Further more ,if Nixon had resigned before Ford's confirmantion as VP, wouldn't have Ford's VP nomination expired?

My response: Constitutionally, thanks to the the 25th Amendment, we can have an "Acting President" instead of a President under certain circumstances. Albert wasn't reluctant to temporarily take on the powers and duties of the office, he was reluctant to take on the permanent office itself. As long as someone's performing the duties of the President, there would be no grounds for the President pro tem to move up the ladder.

But I don't think Speaker Albert set a "precedent" in any binding sense. If a similar situation had somehow occurred with Clinton and Gore (for example, if Clinton's impeachment had succeeded and Gore had somehow been unable to become President), I don't think Speaker Gingrich would have been at all reluctant to become President (not just Acting President), and the law would have been on his side.

Now the question about the possibility of Ford's nomination expiring is a fascinating one, and I have no idea as to the answer. -- JTRH 01:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Democratic representation. This is not just an academic issue -- consider Texas and the controversy over gerrymandering. 198.59.188.232 02:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


Discussion of proportional representation

Maybe we could include a small discussion of the fact that the House is not strictly an example of true proportional representation? (Meaning, each state is proportionally assigned representatives, and it is up to each state to decide who those are; the representatives need not be chosen proportional to party votes. For example, it is theoretically possible for say, in each Congressional district, for 55% of votes to go to Republican, and 45% to Democrat, yet in that case every member of the House would be Republican, despite 45% "proportional" Democratic representation. This is not just an academic issue -- consider Texas and the controversy over gerrymandering. 198.59.188.232 02:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

The House is not at ALL an example of proportional representation. The use of winner-take-all, single-member districts means that the losers get 0, and the results in one district have no bearing on the results in another district in the same state. So a state where the Republican won 55% of the vote in every district would indeed have an entirely Republican delegation, even though 45% of the voters supported Democrats. Single-member districts are required by Federal law, by the way; states used to be able to have some of their members chosen from districts and some at large, but that was abolished when it was determined to be a way to perpetuate discrimination against minorities. --JTRH 01:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

In federal systems such as Congress and the Canadian Parliament, discussion of proportional rep (which would also allow third parties to enter Congress much more often) would probably also deal with how to apportion proportional seats, especially in an MMP - Mixed Member/Proportional - arrangement (some seats are elected by single-member-plurality, as is now done for all seats, and others awarded proportionally). Should the proportionals be awarded for seats at-large nationally based on the national vote shares, or some at-large seats from each state based on the vote shares in that state, or a combination (a combination would ensure at-large members continue to be from different states instead of a few states dominating, while allowing parties to gain seats nationally when they cannot gain one in the smaller number of seats in a state). Also, another issue is whether to use proportionals to raise each party to the proper overall percentage of seats, or whether to use the proportionals as a balance, while still allowing majorities that exceed the actual popular vote. The ultimate resolution is moot as long as there is no popular groundswell of voters to move toward such a system. I'd sure like to see it, though, as I feel the two parties have polarized* around core values that Americans must hold their noses to vote for when they favour other policies of a party. Polarization's even happened in Canada with a five-party tradition since the early 1990s.
  • by polarization, I mean that the Republicans may be hostile to unions and expansion of social programs, but favour constitutional status-quo, whereas the Democrats may be favourable to unions and social programs, but favour judicial activism that overwrites the constitution. That's enormously simplified, but basically, liberals may feel more at home in the Democrats and conservatives may feel more at home in the Republicans, with some exceptions. Some voters would like the best of each, and if the 2004 presidential debates gives any hint, may be turned off by the dominance of foreign affairs in policy. I'm not yet an American voter and I am completely turned off both parties and will not vote for either one! - I need a policy set that's represented by one of the other parties! Prop-rep would shake up and allow a new dynamism and give the two parties reasons to reexamine themselves and renew themselves. GBC 23:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Membership

The article says:

States that are entitled to more than one representative must be divided into single-member districts.

As a non-american, i confess my knowledge of the US constitution is rather weak, but my reading of Article I, Section 2 (Original Text) suggests that it is up to the State Legislatures to decide how the elections should be held - for example maybe Single Transferable Vote in multi-member constituencies, or any number of other voting systems. Is there a law that says that states must be divided into single-member districts (if so it should be cited)? Or should this sentence be changed to indicate that this merely reflects how it is done and has been done to date? – MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 15:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Multi-member districts were common in the early 19th century. Also, if a state gained a seat, they would often have one state wide congressman and the rest in single members districts so that they wouldn't have to redraw the lines. I wonder if we have an article that indicates where this happened. More importantly, do we have the old maps of Congressional districts after each census going back to the earliest? I would be interested in creating that sort of article if I can find a source. NoSeptember talk 12:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The best resource I have found is: Martis, Kenneth C., The Historical Atlas of Political Parties in the United States Congress, 1789-1989. Macmillan Publishing, 1989 ISBN 0-02-920170-5.
—Mark Adler (markles) 16:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I think we need a US government online source (or someone with access to scan US govt documents) if we are to import images to Wikipedia. NoSeptember talk 17:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
The aforementioned "The Historical Atlas of Political Parties in the United States Congress" is not just a great collection of maps. It provides a comprehensive listing of representatives and which district they represented. It also has a very good discussion of how apportionment and redistricting has worked over the centuries. It is a very good resource.—Mark Adler (markles) 01:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Links

On the English wikipedia there is an article with a list which shows the quantity of seats for each federal state in die House of Representatives based on the nationwide census since 1789. Unfortunality I can't find it any more. Could anybody give me the link so that I can insert the list in the German article US-Repräsentantenhaus? Because of my bad English it's very difficult for me to research myself. Thank you very much. 06.01.2006

Here it is → United States Congressional apportionment! —Mark Adler (markles) 02:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Seating plan

Do members have designated seats, or just sit on the right or the left? Do members speak from their seats? Fishhead64 22:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no assigned seating, as Members do not usually "sit" on the House Floor. There are very few occasions in which all 435 Memebrs of Congress are seated -- the State of the Union is one instance, as well as during visits by World dignitaries. In these instances, Republicans sit on the right and Democrats sit on the left - but they can sit wherever they choose. Members usually stand and mill about as Voting takes place. Members also do not speak from their seats -- there are designated areas on the Floor that are equipt with podiums and microphones. Danflave 15:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Even when there's not a special event, the Democrats who are present sit to the left of the aisle (as one faces the dias) and the Republicans sit to the right. There are also tables in the seating area for members and staff to prepare what the members are about to say. The Republican and Democratic leaders have a few drawers on their respective sides of the aisle to store items (like a list of members) that might be helpful. Thesmothete 14:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I noticed the file 111USHouseStructure.png displays a nice graphical layout of the party representation of the House. This is great. However, the picture is backwards from the customary seating arrangement mentioned here; Republicans (red) are to the left of the Speaker and Democrats to the right (from the point of view of the Speaker) when it should really be the other way around. Shouldn't the colors in that picture be flipped horizontally to reflect the "real" layout of the House? 66.76.88.231 (talk) 04:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Bibliography

I have added a bibliography that covers the institutional history and the main leaders over the last 200+ years. Users wanting to follow up will get a solid bibliography; page count gives an idea how much content is covered. I have evaluated each book against the reviews in the scholarly journals, and (except a couple popular items) all are considered solid works of scholarship. Rjensen 10:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Northern Mariana Islands

Why is it that the Northern Mariana Islands is the only territory without a delegate or resident commissioner? The article mentions "legislation has been introduced by Rep. Richard Pombo of California that would allow them to," but why didn't that happen at the same time as the other territories? Шизомби 04:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

the Northern Marianas is not legally a territory, and has a small population (80,000). Rjensen 04:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Minority Party

What happens if more than two parties are sitting in the House? for example back when the Whigs were around, or when the Dixiecrats had thier own party? Is there a second "Minority Party"? Is there a minimum number of seats required for such "official status"? please post the answer to my talk page as well if anyone know's. Pellaken 08:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Those parties were in existence before the 20th-century majority/minority structure grew out of the long-standing dominance of the two-party system. Right now if there are any independents or third parties in either house, they are not even considered a minority party. Independent Jim Jeffords, the only independent in the Senate, caucuses (groups, sides) with the Democrats. His decision to become an Independent in 2001 briefly put the Senate in Democratic hands. --Omaryak 23:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Duplicate information

I've just finished reading over the article, and I've noticed that a lot of the same information that is found in the United States Senate article is located here. What's up with that? It seems to me each article should have information specific to each house, and leave comparisons or information common to both houses in United States Congress. It seems to me some reorganization is needed here. --Omaryak 23:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Constitution

I changed the wording in the lead to read "the United States Constitution" becuase it is not named as such before the abbrviated version "the Constitution" is used. --kralahome 15:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


Patriotic Mythology

The article states:

“The bicameral Congress arose from the desire of the Founders to create a "house of the people" that would represent public opinion, balanced by a more deliberative Senate that would represent the governments of the individual states…”

This is popular patriot mythology but has little basis in fact. The US government system was based on those in place in the colonies before independence, which in turn were based on the British parliamentary system. The House of Representatives, like the House of Commons, was elected and had primary responsibility for fiscal matters, especially taxation. The Senate, which was appointed rather than elected for most of US history (until the seventeenth amendment), was based on the House of Lords and, like that house, was seen as the more senior of the two houses. The powers and responsibilities of the President are almost identical with those of the King in the early part of the 18th century.

A popular belief in the United States, based perhaps on the nonsense history put out by Hollywood, is that King George III was an absolute monarch, a “tyrant.” In fact, the King had been subordinate to Parliament for about 100 years before the Revolutionary War. - Kjb 18:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

well, no. King George III controlled parliament. Rjensen 08:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
That's not what the Oxford Dictionnary says if one trusts this article. --SidiLemine 13:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
The Magna Carta significantly reduced the king's power while granting more power to Parliament... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.87.37 (talk) 23:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

"based perhaps on the nonsense history put out by Hollywood, is that King George III was an absolute monarch, a “tyrant.”" Hollywood? Give me a break; it's from the Declaration of Independance. And he was largly a tyrant. Travis T. Cleveland (talk) 01:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Televising the house

It would be good to add something to the main article about the history of televising the proceedings of the House of Representatives. What year did it start? Who controls it? How has it changed the House?

Canada introduced television to the House of Commons in the fall of 1977. It is under the control of the Speaker, who ordered it to be "staid" - the cameras only focus on the person who has been given the floor by the Speaker; there are no "reaction shots" allowed. As to changes, up until the end of 1977, members rapped their desks as the form of applause; in 1978, the PC party changed to conventional applause (though a few diehards continued to rap their desks) and in a only a year or two, all parties did it that way. For a short time in 1977-78, the "shuffle" happened - PC members would move to fill seats behind the member speaking; Liberal members countered by fleeing the seats near the member speaking; members changed their tailors; PCs wore sunglasses against the bright lights until the party leader told them to cut it out (and not look like a Godfather convention).

So, what is the history of television in the US House, and, similar to the above effects on Canada's house, what sorts of changes came to members' conduct and attire? Who controls the cameras and is it as "staid" or are "reaction shots" or "split screens" between debaters allowed? GBC 18:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

LBJ relationship?

Does anyone know if Sam Johnson is related to the Texas political family of Lyndon Johnson, whose brother, father and paternal grandfather were all named Sam or Samuel Johnson. TonyTheTiger 21:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Call his office and ask. 202-225-4201.--Daysleeper47 21:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

i dont think so, sams a common name, and johnson is a common last name. but maybe you should do some research. -- 68.23.165.15

Item identification

What is the name of the items hanging on the wall that are on either side of the flag? They are gold in color. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abstrakone (talk • contribs) 02:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

They are fasces, the picture is even included in that article as an example. Danthemankhan 04:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Architecture and decoration

I was looking for the list of the bas reliefs depicting great lawmakers, such as the one mentionned in the Suleiman the Magnificent article, and I was surprise to see no description of the "house" proper. Can I find it somewhere else?--SidiLemine 13:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Citations tag

Who put up the citation/footnotes tag? And why? JasonCNJ 20:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm taking this tag down as no one has come forward to explain why it is there and it's been 20 days. JasonCNJ 15:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I did not add the tag in September, but in November 2007 I re-instituted the tag. I note there are zero indications of the particular resource relied upon for the many assertions made, though there are many excellent links to constitutional points and other wiki articles, which I think are good enough.
Below, a few examples that cannot be supported by merely reading the constitution, or linked articles; there are many others that a careful editor can discover. Basically, all assertions should be supported.
  • During the second half of the nineteenth century, the House was frequently in conflict with the Senate over sectionally divisive issues, including slavery. The North was much more populous than the South, and therefore dominated the House of Representatives.
  • The Constitution does not require Members to live in the districts which they represent, though many state laws require this for their own representatives.
  • Rules for independent and third-party candidates seeking a spot on the November ballot vary from state to state. For the general election, almost all states use the first-past-the-post system, under which the candidate with a plurality of votes (not necessarily an absolute majority) wins. The sole exception is Louisiana, which holds an all-party "primary election" on the general Election Day, with a subsequent runoff election between the top two finishers (regardless of party) if no candidate receives a majority in the primary.
  • When debate concludes, the motion in question is put to a vote. In many cases, the House votes by voice vote; the presiding officer puts the question, and Members respond either "Yea" (in favor of the motion) or "Nay" (against the motion). The presiding officer then announces the result of the voice vote. Any member, however, may challenge the presiding officer's assessment and "request the yeas and nays" or "request a recorded vote." The request may be granted only if it is seconded by one-fifth of the members present. In practice, however, members of congress second requests for recorded votes as a matter of courtesy. Recorded votes are automatically held in some cases, such as votes on the annual budget.
-- Yellowdesk 00:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 05:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Updating the membership and vacancy data

There's just been an edit war over changing the data to reflect the election of Jackie Speier to fill the vacancy caused by Tom Lantos' death (CA 12). A vacancy is filled when the member-elect takes the oath of office, which Speier did this morning at 11:34 AM ET [1]. I just updated it to reflect that fact. Can we please establish a consensus that the chart doesn't get changed the minute the winner is declared in a special election, or at the very beginning of the calendar day when the swearing-in is scheduled (both of which happened in this case)? Thanks. JTRH (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability it isn't the end of the world if there's a slight delay. I've benn looking for a source all morning and it is frustrating to have my work undercut by uncited updates.--Dr who1975 (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
The link I posted is the Clerk of the House's summary of legislative activity. That is THE official source.JTRH (talk) 16:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the above, I just realized that I hadn't included the cite on the article page when I updated the chart. It's there now. My apologies.JTRH (talk) 16:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Someone just wiped out the notations I'd added to the chart, and I've reverted that. The Jackie Speier sentence is there specifically because of the edit war that took place on this page within the last couple of days, regarding, first, when it's appropriate to change the membership list to reflect the results of a special election, and then, a misunderstanding (for which I was partially responsible) as to whether or not her swearing-in this morning had been properly sourced. The statements about the other vacant districts don't need to stay after their respective special elections, but in the meantime, it's certainly relevant to a table about the US House that lists three vacancies to specify which seats they are and when they will be filled. Thanks. JTRH (talk) 21:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Readers don't/won't care about edit wars. This is an article about the House of Representatives, not really about the 110th Congress. Mention of this Congress is useful and necessary, but some details are irrelevant to this article, such as: which specific seats are vacant and what just happened in a special election.—Markles 10:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Edit wars harm the credibility and content of Wikipedia. Again, I wouldn't have added the Speier sentence if there hadn't been a controversy about updating the chart. Since I've found the same information posted in the specific article on the 110th Congress, I wasn't set in stone about keeping it in this one. JTRH (talk) 14:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaker overlinking

In editing another article, it took me long time to figure out that a Speaker of the House article exists. Perhaps I'm just dense and/or unlucky, but several non-linked instances of Speaker in this article led me to initially believe that no such article existed. To remedy future oversights, I added a link in the Procedure section, but it was reverted by Loonymonkey (talk · contribs) diff. The MOS suggests linking important terms once in each major section (WP:Manual of Style (links)#Overlinking and underlinking: what's the best ratio?), and I believe this is a helpful link. I'm reverting. Noca2plus (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree... I think that it's not so bad to have a page linked more than once, particularily in a large article like this one. I'm pretty sure the link once thing is a guideline and not a policy. and this is a guideline taken to far when applied to a page like this. The point of having a single link is the idea that a person will see it the first time as they read the article from top to bottom and not need to see it further down the page..... it's one thing to do that in an article that's about a single event or person that has a narrative... but who the heck would read an article like this directly from top to bottom. People are so fricking dogmatic sometimes with no regard to reasons behind certain rules.--Dr who1975 (talk) 18:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Individuals

Charlie Rose

CHARLIE ROSE WAS NEVER A CONGRESSMAN. CAN SOMEONE PLEASE REMOVE THE PART ABOUT HIM, IT'S NOT TRUE. 81.191.43.101 (talk) 21:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Number of representatives

Are you sure the number of congressmen is 435, rather than 540? -Genedoug (talk) 13:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

  • There are 435 members in the House of Representatives, that is elected, voting representatives. There are 100 Senators, and 4 non-voting delegates from territories, and 1 non-voting resident commissioner from Puerto Rico. So that's 540 in the entire Congress, but only 435 of them are referred to as "congressmen."Dcmacnut (talk) 16:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Will be 541 beginning January 2009 with a new seat for the Northern Mariana Islands. That's five "delegates" plus the PR resident commissioner. HkCaGu (talk)
All delegates are referred to as Congressmen/Congresswomen. HkCaGu (talk) 06:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
True, but I believe the original question was about the 435 voting representatives. While delegates have the title of congressman/congresswoman or even representative, they are not "full" representatives.Dcmacnut (talk) 15:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I understand, and as far as I've seen, "Rep. XXX" means one of the 435, and the other 4 (soon 5) are called "Del. XXX". They're all "congressman/congresswomen". They are just as "elected" from their district and are subject to the same federal election regulation. HkCaGu (talk) 16:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


Still accurate?

"The power to elect the Vice President in the case of an electoral college deadlock belongs to the Senate." in the case of a dead lock can the senate now choose someone other than the President elect's running mate to be the VP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.239.107 (talk) 22:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Presumably. The constitution was changed to no longer have the top two winners of the election become president and vice-president after parties began to arise, but as far as I know, this part was overlooked, or was left alone so that neither house of Congress would feel like they were getting screwed. 74.94.21.101 (talk) 18:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
The Senate is bound by the 12th Amendment to choose among the top-two candidates for receiving votes in the Electoral College for Vice President. (It was not overlooked.) So the Senate, voting as individual Senators, must get 51 votes in favor of one of the top-two candidates receiving electoral votes for VP to select the Vice President when the choice falls to them under the 12th Amendment. JasonCNJ (talk) 06:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I meant the possibility of a president and vice president being from different parties was overlooked, despite being fixed elsewhere. 74.94.21.101 (talk) 12:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Homogenous vs homogeneous

Let's not dilute the language with neologisms reflecting lazy functional illiteracy. The word is "homogeneous". I also point out that the link, used in the first paragraph, displays a page of homog* words, none of which is "homogenous". 'nuf said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.99.73 (talk) 19:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Initiating Spending BIlls

If I read this article correctly, it is only in practice that the House holds exclusive power to initiate spending bills. The Senate has de jure power to initiate spending bills, but doesn't. They often begin working on their own version, then wait for the version that passes the House. Then, the Senate compares its version to the House's version and passes a compromise bill. Did I read it correctly? http://www.c-span.org/questions/weekly32.asp Axeman (talk) 01:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

That is correct, however. Article One of the U.S. Constitution only states "all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose . . . amendments." This clause is specific to bills dealing with tax policy, but since annual appropriations bills also can deal with revenues, traditionally the House goes first. The Senate can introduce and pursue any legislation it wishes, including tax legislation, on its own, but traditionally it will wait for a House-passed version before completing work. It's both a practical matter and a matter of legislative tradition, particularly since the Constitution also requires that the House and Senate pass the same bill, with the same bill number, prior to sending it to the President. That's what's happening in the Senate today with the Wall Street legislation and tax credit extension bill in the Senate. They are amending a bill that has already passed the house H.R. 1424, and if it passes it will go back to the House for concurrence or further amendment. Since H.R. 1424 already was a bill dealing with revenue, the constitutional requirement that "bills for raising revenue originate in the House" is met even though the original bill affected a different section of the tax code.DCmacnut<> 01:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Who the hell elects members of the House

I assume it is the general population of america that votes for their election? Why is this not clearly explained? It seems to be assumed that the reader already knows this information —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.134.237.146 (talk) 00:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Have you read the article? This is explained in the first paragraph (and then in much greater detail in subsequent sections). --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Number of Electoral Votes for California

California has 55 electoral votes, not 53 as it states in the introduction of the article.

The introduction isn't referring to the number of California's electoral votes, but to the number of its members of the House of Representatives, which is two fewer than its number of electoral votes. 24.149.110.84 (talk) 13:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Legislative functions: Veto override

This section of the article suggests that a the President may not veto a bill that has been passed with a two-thirds majority in both chambers of Congress. This is not true, as it appears to conflate the process by which a bill is sent to the President with the process by which it becomes law notwithstanding the President's disapproval. The President may veto any bill, thus requiring both chambers to reconsider the bill and override the veto with the aforementioned majority. One can imagine a situation where a bill that originally passes with two-thirds majorities in both chambers does not command the same yea votes after a veto.

Review Section 7 of Article One of the United States Constitution for a description of the two separate steps. 24.149.110.84 (talk) 13:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Ohio on the map

Ohio is shown on the map as having a tied (9-9) delegation between the parties. In actuality, Democrats have a 10-8 advantage in the 111th Congress, so Ohio should be colored light blue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.209.71.141 (talk) 02:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC) rachel gissell rojas was here hha and what —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.235.37.6 (talk) 21:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

North/South broken logic

There is a statement here that I am uncomfortable with:

The North was much more populous than the South, and therefore dominated the House of Representatives. However, the North held no such advantage in the Senate, where the equal representation of states prevailed.

There is something about this that over-simplifies the slavery issue regarding the north/south arguments in the senate. There were not an equal number of states in the "north" as there were in the "south". Further, the divisions were largely economically driven-----I can't put my finger on it, but the statement I quote above doesn't seem to jive right. (According to Bruce Catton) Tgm1024 (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Recommended change to procedures section

Is it too early to install the "Slaughter Rule" in article which allows the House to pass legislation WITHOUT a vote? This is a rather new and compelling rule change which would be perfect in encyclopedic articles. If you do not know what the "Slaughter Rule" is just yet, you may need to wait until after it is passed just to see what's in it. This is the similar to finding out what is in the Health Care Bill. Nancy Pelosi: "We need to pass it so you can see what is in it" referring to the Health Care Bill.Bikeric (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that issue belongs in this article. It's probably more appropriate at Health care reform debate in the United States, since is is a newly coined term being used by the GOP as part of their public statements on health care reform. It's not necessarily a general, body wide procedure. As I understand it, the so-called "Slaughter Rule" is related to the health care bill debate, so that's where the discussion belongs. Rules for consideration of bills approved by the House Rules Committee focus only on the main bill or bills in question and are separate and distinct from the broader House Standing Rules.DCmacnut<> 20:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the prompt response. I was under the assumption that if a rule was passed which allowed any bill to pass without a vote, it would apply to all bills in the future. I do understand, however, that rules are simply meant to be broken these days.Bikeric (talk) 21:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
A rule that is passed by the Rules Committee, and subsequently approved by the full House applies only to the bill or bills specifically listed in the rule, not every bill. The House has structured bill-rules before to streamline the process, particularly if a lot of amendments are being offered. Sometimes, the rule can, state the underlying bill (as amended) is approved without requiring an up or down vote on the final version. I can't recall a specific example at this time, but it's most often used on non-controversial measures. It's similar to unanimous consent in the Senate, whereby a senator may state "I ask unanimous consent that Bills X, Y, and Z each be read a third time and passed without any intervening action or debate" to quickly discharge several bills all at once. I'm not weighing in the merits of this particular issue, but given the highly charged and partisan tone between Democrats and Republicans over this so-called "solution" we'll need to make sure it remains neutral and appropriate to whatever article is is added.DCmacnut<> 22:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I very much appreciate your knowledge. Could you explain how "A rule that is passed by the Rules Committee," could then be "subsequently approved by the full House....." without a vote of the full House. I am simply referring to the rule passed by the rule committee, and not the bill. This may be common knowledge to some individuals, but I can not find that in this particular article. Could you DCmacnut please help complete this article? I would hope an encyclopedic article would contain more information then what is in it now.Bikeric (talk) 22:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Let's get several facts correct here. First, a special rule providing for consideration of a House measure specifies the rules that will be in effect for that legislation (e.g...2 hours of debate or 3 hours of debate; 10 amendments in order or none; etc). Those special rules reported from the Rules Committee require a record vote in the Rules Committee and require a vote on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives in order to take effect. There is no mechanism in the rules of the House - and no mechanism that has been reported by any news organization - that would permit the House to pass a bill without a vote by the full House. The commonly reported "Slaughter Rule" is actually called a "self-executing provision" and, as I mentioned, it requires a vote by the full House on the floor. see Self-executing rule. As a final point, none of this belongs in an encyclopedia article on the House. The minute details of the Rules Committee isn't notable enough, nor will it be reported by sufficient independent sources for inclusion in this article. With all the debate in Washington and in the country over health care reform, let us do our best to keep this page a neutral site for information about the House and not a new forum for the health care debate. JasonCNJ (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I found this answer in another location. As far as the details of the Rules Committee not being notable is questionable to me, but I understand. I am a new member and expected more from Wikipedia. It claims to be "The Free Encyclopedia", but if details are just simply too much to add to an article, then we can rename the site "WIKICLIFF: The Free Cliff Notes On Everything Someone Else Finds Notable." I have made no changes on the article page. I thought the talk page was the proper place to bring up my question. If I am incorrect, could someone please direct me to the proper location? Is it too much to ask to have someone who knows, place a link in the article to the actual rules? I am not asking for a complete reprint in the article, but simply insert the link to hidden book of knowledge.Bikeric (talk) 23:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Is this the same as "Deem and Pass", the rule that is being discussed for passing the U.S. healthcare bill without a vote? I am looking for an explanation of this rule.Bigguyinct (talk) 14:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
see Self-executing rule for what is being done to pass the health care bill. Rjensen (talk) 14:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


I have noticed over time that my edits on discussion pages always expand to a larger size than anything on the discussion page above. Most sections in the discussion page are a single comment and a single response. I see now that the discussion page is not meant for discussion, as I define it. This article is not the first to give me this impression. Is it Wiki etiquette to take the discussion from this page to a users talk page? That is fine with me. I ask this question because I do not want to leave what would appear to be "tagging" on a fine article. Help me help the cause to keep Wiki clean of unsightly additions where they are not required. Bikeric (talk) 02:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Representatives determined by population

Is the number of representatives calculated by the population of voting aged people only, or are children included in the count?

It's total population. The Census counts everyone living in a given area on the date it's taken (April 1 of years ending in 0). College towns get credit for students living there, even if they're from another state, and if illegal immigrants get recorded by the census, they're counted as well. JTRH (talk) 16:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
The count also includes legal immigrant non-citizens (who cannot vote) and felons in those states that bar them from voting. (In theory, everyone is only supposed to be counted once -- if students are counted in their aforentioned college towns, they won't be counted at their parents home.) --Jfruh (talk) 03:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Upper/lower houses of US Congress

I suppose it has been discussed before, but I didn't easily find the discussion which led to the decision for this wiki to term the United States House of Representatives as "the lower house of the bicameral legislature of the United States of America".

Professor, Dr. [what-was-his-name?] at Auburn, in a public administration masters course (circa '82 - '83) explained it this way: Our founding fathers wrote "All men are created equal" and then they set about writing a constitution that embodied that ideal and they specifically excluded the British idea of an upper, more noble "House of Lords" and a lower body of non-noble blooded commoners, the "House of Commons"..

having rejected the notion of Kings, Queens, Lords and peasants they instead instituted two *coequal* bodies, the House of Representatives and the Senate to form a Congress of equals who shared power with the other two branches of the government of "We the People".....not we the lords and peasants..

may i just change the first sentence to "The United States House of Representatives is one of two coequal bodies of the bicameral legislature of the United States of America, comprising the United States Congress together with the United States Senate." (and, make the other upper/lower repairs necessary on that page and others)?

or must we have a discussion?

note: i am aware that the internet has many cites which might be used to "prove" the USA's House is the lower of the two bodies...those sources do not make it so.

note 2: i am also aware that the wiki article in question uses the term "lower" several times--but each is incorrect...a fact i can't yet cite from the transcripts of the official discussions of the Constitutional Convention--those transcripts having never been recorded. Yes, Madison's Virginia plan (and other plans) _may_ have suggested the USA mirror the upper (in 'class' of membership) House of Lords and the lower class of the House of Commons, but all such were rejected in favor of "All men are created equal."

note 3: in the first congress the Senate met up the stairs and therefore over the House which was _directionally_ and/or _physically_ the "lower house"...today the House and Senate meet on the same physical level in the Capitol and calling it "lower" today is as correct as calling the Senate the "diminutive body" because it is less than one-quarter the size of the House of Representatives, or calling the House the "south house" since the Senate's chamber is in the north wing of the capitol building..

DenverD (talk) 09:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Gerrymandering

The disscussion on gerrymandering is useful and an important part of the disscusion on the US congress. However, there is a line:

The legal gerrymandering of the House, combined with the institutionalized gerrymandering of the Senate and the Electoral College, have been criticized as being antithetical to democracy and representative government an tits an boobs.

I think if this statement is to remain, it should be better explained.

What is meant by "institutionalized gerrymandering?"

If this is commentary on the nature of the senate (each state having two seats) then perhaps it is inappropriate for the article.)

Typo in graph?

Summary of the 2 November 2004 United States House of Representatives election results

This graph reports that in 2002 there were 229 republican representatives, 204 democratic representatives and 1 indpendent one. These do not add up to 435.

New page for overview of party-control of US House, Senate, and Presidency?

Would it make sense to have a chronology (table and graphic?) showing which party controlled which house (and the Executive), from 1776 to the present? This seems like the kind of basic reference an encyclopedia should have. Maybe this already exists in piece-meal fashion, but I don't see it in one place. E.g.:

Year Senate House President
1776 Whig Tory Green
1778 Whig Green Green
1780 Democrat Republican Republican
etc.

If so, what's a good page name? "US Government - Party Control of"

The Congress is both the House and the Senate, not just the House

The United States Legislateive branch of the government is the United States Congress. The United Staes Congress consists of 2 equal "houses", the House of Representatives, and the Senate. Both are the Congress. It is inaccurate to state that the legislative branch is made up of the Congress and the Senate. No need to cite some ivory tower expert... Just read the U.S. Constitution.

Barry 74.7.193.122 (talk) 20:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming your talking about the lead sentence, which is technically correct, though its wording is incredibly awkward. DC T•C 21:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I re-wrote it DC T•C 21:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Graph of representation per population

"Population per U.S. Representative allocated to each of the 50 states and DC"

Why does this graph include DC? Why doesn't it include other non-states, like Puerto Rico? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.70.63 (talk) 14:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

On October 13 2000, by a vote of 3 to 0, the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment does not allow Puerto Rico any electoral votes. Monterey Bay (talk) 23:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Change of positions

I think Boehner is now the Speaker of the House after the recent midterm elections. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 22:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

NO! Current members' term doesn't expire until January 2011. HkCaGu (talk) 23:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


-> Agreed. You guys should NOT have changed the composition of the House because every incoming Congressman is still a Congressman-elect and HAS NOT been sworn in. Thats like saying Barack Obama was President on January 19, 2009 when he in fact was not -- George W. Bush was still President. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.247.75.176 (talk) 01:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Better Salary Source

A better source for salary information: http://www.house.gov/daily/salaries.htm

It confirms what the about.com page says, but is more reputable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelbraun (talk • contribs) 14:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Stupid question on the diagram

Shouldn't be Boehner's circle at the center since he's the speaker? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 18:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Photograph of Obama, Pelosi, et al. (Member Officials)

The photograph caption in this section ("Member officials") states that Pelosi is still the speaker. For sake of currency, it should be updated to "Former Speaker..."

It all depends on the time the picture was taken. If the picture was taken while she was speaker, then it is proper in its context. And please sign your posts.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Rules for dissolution

What are the rules that apply to the dissolution of the House of Representatives?  Cs32en Talk to me  01:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

If what you mean by "dissolution" (which isn't a term used in the US Congress) is "adjournment," they can adjourn by majority vote at any time. At the end of each annual session, they pass a resolution to adjourn "sine die," to end that year's session. The US government is never "dissolved" as happens in a parliamentary system. Elections occur every two years and a member of the House's term is exactly two years. That never changes. JTRH (talk) 02:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your explanation!  Cs32en Talk to me  21:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Color Coding in Diagram of Seats

Since the purpose of this article is primarily for readers outside the US, should we keep to the convention used outside the US, where blue is use to denote the conservative parties, (i.e. Republicans) while red is associated with left-leaning parties (i.e. Democrats - albeit a stretch to call them "left")? The association of the color red with conservatism is a rather recent media phenomenon in the US and could change at any time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.77.76.83 (talk) 03:52, 11 March 2012‎ (UTC)

readers outside the USA want to learn how Americans do things--so they will be ready to learn the color codes Americans actually use. Rjensen (talk) 04:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
The US media use of red to designate Republicans and blue for Democrats dates back to at least the 1976 election, and has been widely adopted as part of the US popular discourse. It's hardly a recent phenomenon and not likely to change. Furthermore, if different countries use different conventions, a universal designation on Wikipedia (i.e., blue = conservative everywhere and red = liberal everywhere) would be inaccurate and confusing. JTRH (talk) 12:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
note that Red never meant "liberal" in any country I know of -- it meant Socialist or Communist. Rjensen (talk) 12:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

How many people?

The page currently states that there are 435 voting members and 6 non-voting members, for a grand total of 441. There are 242 in the Republican Party and 190 in the Democratic Party, which is only 432. Where do the other 9 members come from? Independent parties? If so, that should be noted. DanielDPeterson + talk 23:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The discrepancy is due to vacancies. JTRH (talk) 23:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Specific reguirements and benefits for representatives

Specific reguirements and benefits for representatives.

Please clear up rumors of life-long health benefits for serving one term in office. Can a member of congress have dual citizenship. If yes, are there any restrictions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.34.1 (talk) 18:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

  • The salaries & benefits section has been expanded, and should clarify this issue. Let me know if you think there is anything still unclear. Sahrin (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Congressman vs. Representative

Which one to use? Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics#Congressman vs. Representative. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Precipitate Transition from 112th to 113th Congress

If you'll pardon the lazy resort, the page has been improperly updated to reflect the results of the 2012 elections as if they had taken effect. Thus, in multiple places it says that there are 201 voting Democratic Members, whereas that won't be the case until the Members are sworn in in January, 2013, and the 113th Congress begins. (Some changes did occur already in cases where special elections elected Members to the remainder of the 112th.) Someone with more time and energy than I have may wish to remedy these errors. Czrisher (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Seating: L or R from which point of view?

It says at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives#Daily_procedures "...Members' seats are arranged in the chamber in a semicircular pattern and are divided by a wide central aisle. By tradition, Democrats sit on the left of the center aisle, while Republicans sit on the right, as viewed from the presiding officer's chair...." The statement "...as viewed from the presiding officer's chair...." seems to be at odds with the diagram under "Structure" in the data box at the beginning of the article, which shows the Democrats on the left and the Republicans on the right as viewed from the FLOOR, looking TOWARD the presiding officer's chair. Wikifan2744 (talk) 19:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Research now allows me to say that the answer to my question above is that the diagram under "Structure" in the data box at the beginning of the article is correct: the Democrats sit on the left and the Republicans sit on the right as viewed from the floor, looking toward the presiding officer's chair. The relevant evidence comes from http://history.house.gov/Exhibitions-and-Publications/House-Chamber/House-Floor/ which is: "Unlike the Members of the Senate, Members of the House have no assigned seats but are by tradition divided by party; Members of the Democratic Party sit to the Speaker's right and Members of the Republican Party sit to his left." Therefore, I will reverse in the article the words "left" and "right" in the current version of the sentence quoted in my earlier post. Wikifan2744 (talk) 08:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Voting Rights of Delegates and the Resident Commissioner

It has been my understanding that the "non-voting" House members from the five organized unincorporated U.S. territories and D.C. have the right to vote in Committee but not on the House floor. The article, however, states at the end of the Apportionment section that since 2011 they may no longer vote in Committee. The statement cites an NPR interview regarding the 2011 House rules changes in footnote [8] and H.R. 78 of the 110th Congress in footnote [9]. I'm assuming that the information in H.R. 78 is irrelevant since apparently the bill was never passed by the Senate. The NPR interview mentions the removal of the Delegates' and Resident Commissioner's voting rights on the House floor, but it makes no mention of their Committee voting rights. So either I need correction or the article needs either correction or a reference supporting the removal of the Delegates' and Resident Commissioner's Committee voting rights; please help.

HankW512 (talk) 12:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Using the term "power of the house is to pass federal legislation" is inaccurate.

The statement "The major power of the House is to pass federal legislation that affects the entire country" is not the right statement. "Federal" has meaning in the context of the "Federal Principle" espoused by Madison in the Federalist Papers #51. However, is in not a "power" of Congress. The major power of the House is to "pass United States legislation. The U.S. Constitution nowhere mentions the term federal. The federal principle upon which it rests include the People, the United States and the States. The legislation that Congress passes is referred to in Article III, Section 2, as "the Laws of the United States. It is also not true that their legislation (effects) the entire country. Each piece of Legislation either only effects the specific places where that legislation touches, or the States who have volitionally opted into what is often called a "federal" benefit program. A better term might be that "the results of the legislation impact" the entire country. It ultimately has that effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.55.5 (talk) 17:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The overwhelmingly vast majority of innumerable sources refer to Congress (including the House) as passing "federal" legislation. And most laws that Congress passes are "public laws" that are considered "laws of general applicability", applying across all 50 states unless Congress specifically restricts the scope of the law more narrowly. As for states having to opt in to a "federal benefit program", yes, it's true that Congress cannot constitutionally pass laws that "commandeer" state executive branches to enforce federal spending programs, but Congress can pass laws that restrict states from taking certain actions with their own tax dollars, and Congress can also enforce its own spending programs in every state that refuses to enforce the program. Congress can also pass laws that don't involve spending programs, and unless they are held to be unconstitutional, states must follow them. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 19:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Diagram

The diagram needs to be updated to show Rep. Boehner's seat, which has been vacated. MB298 (talk) 03:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on United States House of Representatives. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Elected from single-member districts by plurality voting

From what I understand this line, under "Membership, qualifications and apportionment" - > "Elections", is inaccurate: "By law, Representatives must be elected from single-member districts by plurality voting." Does anyone know of a federal law that mandates single member districts by plurality voting or is this referring to laws at the state-level requiring such structure? If it's the latter this is needs some clarification in the article.

I can't find anything regarding a federal law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.150.184.160 (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Public Law 90-196, a federal law enacted in 1967. 208.104.151.141 (talk) 20:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


Right this covers single-member districts but it doesn't mention plurality voting. It's theoretically possible to impose proportional representation on to single-member districts; where in the the vote determines the number of seats each party gets state-wide, and then those seats are allocated to candidates in each district based on their total vote counts, where the seats are awarded based on a list generated by the top vote getters per party. This would create districts where the representative didn't actually achieve the majority. See this for an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biproportional_apportionment#Fair_majority_voting
A single-member district is not affected by elections in other districts. 208.104.151.141 (talk) 12:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

"First-past-the-post" verses "Plurality"

We say "Plurality" in American English. I changed the infobox to reflect that.

"Lower" chamber

That statement seems to me like it would be misleading. The house and Senate have two very different responsibilities outside of approving bills, no? This article even says that the House is only refereed to as the lower chamber informally in the "Comparison to the Senate" section. There has to be a better word for this, no?Kude90 (talk) 02:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Discrepancy in the numbers

The sidebar states that there are five (5) vacant seats, however in the "Current Standing" section it states that there's four (4) vacant and one (1) independent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.190.27 (talk) 22:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Just corrected. Five vacancies and no independents is correct. JTRH (talk) 23:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United States House of Representatives. 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) 08:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United States House of Representatives. 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) 19:27, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Image of sitting arrangement needs update

There' currently 433 occupied seats in the House. A number which will be reducing to possible 431. We need the table updated. GoodDay (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

PS: Make that currently 432. GoodDay (talk) 00:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on United States House of Representatives. 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) 06:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

United States House of Representatives chamber

Just to let page editors know that there is not a page focusing on the chamber itself (see corresponding page United States Senate chamber). I "discovered" this while wondering if the page mentioned the artwork on the ceiling of the chamber, or artwork within it. I've put up a redirect but there really should be a good page on this topic. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Current Composition

Tomrtn (talk · contribs) According to http://www.house.gov/representatives/ there are currently 238 Republican representatives, 193 Democratic representatives, and 4 vacant seats. UpperJeans (talk) 10:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

108.171.131.168 (talk · contribs), care to explain your removal of this comment? UpperJeans (talk) 22:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
JocularJellyfish (talk · contribs), Like I already noted, the official web page of the House of Representatives says that there are currently 3 vacant seats http://www.house.gov/representatives/. UpperJeans (talk) 00:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
UpperJeans (talk · contribs), I understand that, but federal law (specifically 2 U.S.C. § 5304) states that pay – and likely the term of office– begins the date of the election and not the date of taking the oath. If you want to keep it your way, it doesn't really matter to me as it will change in a matter of weeks anyway. JocularJellyfish (talk) 00:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Unless there's any evidence to suggest that the house.gov site is so disorganized and slow to update that it has listed Gianforte as a member but none of the others elected in special elections today, I don't see much reason to say that their term starts once their pay comes in. UpperJeans (talk) 00:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

it is November 9th, 2018 and the data of the most recent election are nto clearly visible. 37.99.60.232 (talk) 05:51, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Some races have not yet been decided, so the data will change. Best to hold off and post when we have something definite. JTRH (talk) 13:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Two special elections held on Election Day (PA-07 and PA-15) mean that the upcoming lame duck session of the House will seat 2 more Democrats. Susan Wild will be sworn in for PA-15 and Mary Gay Scanlon will do the same with PA-07. They should be sworn in next week. Should we enter them now? --Icowrich (talk) 08:13, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Their service actually begins when they're elected and qualified, NOT when they are "sworn." So they should be included now.

Changes in House membership of 115th US Congress

Due to 5 special elections held on November 6, the number changed immediately from 235-193 for Republicans to 236-197 for Republicans. GoodDay (talk) 07:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

House Bill 307

       The honorary Pet Geren

     Happened across this bill and feel it needs your support.Though it may be crossing 
 religious with public school i don't see any harm in the lessons from this.



      https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_House_of_Representatives&action=edit&section=new    Sincerely 
                          Paul Kuegele  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:3E80:72D0:3DA9:9BCE:D251:E5A2 (talk) 17:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Justin Amash and Bernie Sanders

Justin Amash exit is on Twitter. Should we include that he is an independent on the infographic? also Bernie Sanders is currently an independent or a Democrat please decide and fix on Bernie Sanders wiki page. Manabimasu (talk) 14:29, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

The page United States House of Representatives chamber...

...still directs to this page. There is an article for the United States Senate chamber, but not for the House chamber. I'd like to read about it, so if anyone wants to pick up the topic, just letting editors know that it's open. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders

Bernie Saners is no longer an Independent. He is officially apart of the Democratic party, please fix it.... Infinity2323236 (talk) 09:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

He is still an independent Senator. JTRH (talk) 11:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Need to update Amash party affiliation

Libertarian now, not independent — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.105.63 (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2020

Justin Amash, the only Independent member of the United States House of Representatives changed his party affiliation to the Libertarian Party. He announced on April 28, 2020, that he would form an exploratory committee for the Presidential election in 2020.

Source: thehill.com/homenews/campaign/495173-amash-launches-exploratory-committee-for-presidential-run JCaudill417 (talk) 02:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@JCaudill417:  Done! GoingBatty (talk) 02:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2020

Please change the independent member to a Libertarian. Justin Amash is now a member of the Libertarian Party. The graphic showing the chamber partisanship should include a gold circle instead of a gray one.

This has been confirmed by the chairman of the national Libertarian Party, Nicholas Sarwark. [1] AtlantanKnight7 (talk) 02:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://twitter.com/nsarwark/status/1255310040942116869?s=20

@AtlantanKnight7:  Done, but you might want to post a request at Commons:File talk:(116th) US House of Representatives.svg to change the graphic from gray to gold. GoingBatty (talk) 02:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Amash has joined the LP

Amash has joined the LP check this reference Justin Amash Formally Joins the Libertarian Party, Makes History--also https://reason.com/2020/04/29/justin-amash-becomes-the-first-libertarian-member-of-congress/ Tgmod (talk) 12:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Justin Amash Affiliation

I have the ability to make the edit, but I wanted to consult with the talk page before doing so, as others have done the same. Though an announcement was made that he is seeking the Libertarian nomination, I can find no source stating that Amash officially registered as Libertarian. As such, he should remain listed as Independent until as source can be found. Metamorph985 (talk) 05:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Update: I have proceeded to revert the edits as it would be easier to revert my edit later if overruled than to have to fix multiple, possibly helpful edits further down the line because we waited too long. Could we please discuss these edits before publishing them? Metamorph985 (talk) 06:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Update: See above, I have provided direct evidence in the form of a [link](https://www.house.gov/representatives) and a [screenshot](https://imgur.com/a/l2FraH6) that he has officially changed his party with the house clerk. Please revert, or allow users to make the appropriate updates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9001:6700:8E41:14A4:83AF:3D96:7121 (talk) 23:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Party membership

Justin Amash has announced that he will be a Libertarian member of Congress. I would imagine that the Clerk's office is not set up to process the change in the membership rolls at present. However, in order to avoid the same kind of back-and-forth that happened when Bernie Sanders sought the Democratic nomination for President while remaining an independent Senator, I'd like to make the following points: A statement of party affiliation in Congress is potentially (as in Bernie's case) a separate issue from seeking a party's nomination for another office, or an individual's voter registration (since some states have no party registration). Bernie Sanders did not become a Democratic Senator, he stayed an independent Senator who was a candidate for the Democratic Presidential nomination. The fact that Amash has said he's joining the LP and running for the LP nomination does not automatically make him "a Libertarian member of Congress" until the House officially recognizes it. It's not really significant, because unlike his leaving the R's to become I, it doesn't affect the balance of power between the two parties. Just some thoughts. JTRH (talk) 16:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

See above, I have provided direct evidence in the form of a [link](https://www.house.gov/representatives) and a [screenshot](https://imgur.com/a/l2FraH6) that he has officially changed his party with the house clerk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9001:6700:8E41:14A4:83AF:3D96:7121 (talk) 23:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The change has indeed been made. Good catch. JTRH (talk) 01:30, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2020

Change "The president may veto a bill passed by the House and Senate. If he does, the bill does not become law unless each House, by a two-thirds vote, votes to override the veto." to "The president may veto a bill passed by the House and Senate. If he or she does, the bill does not become law unless each House, by a two-thirds vote, votes to override the veto." Amassy10 (talk) 08:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done Changed to "they do" instead of "he or she does". Mdaniels5757 (talk) 15:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2020

198 Republicans Politicalfactjunkie2k20 (talk) 20:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. If this is in reference to yesterday's special elections, I guess the results are still preliminary. In California, especially, they might not be accurate and official for a while given the tendency in normal times for mail-in ballots there... RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 21:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Our Republican President. Donald Trump

Fellow Republicans and conservatives: 

I am a lifelong Republican who has supported Republican candidates, both State and Federal.  Enough is enough from this clown we elected President. Time for us to back away from him and his policies. Since we do not have a Republican choice I am advocating either selecting another party's candidate or Don't vote for President. You Republican U.S. Legislators need to stay as far from Trump as posible or face being swept out if office with him.

YOU MUST PUT YOUR VOTERS FIRST, EVEN IF IT MEANS COLORING OUTSIDE THE PARTY LINES. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C48:717F:B0F1:C526:F972:2CD9:F396 (talk) 13:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

poo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:7141:7E00:7C72:3087:787C:4A74 (talk) 09:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2020

Change the number of vacancies from 5 to 4 and the number of Republicans from 197 to 198 as Representative-elect Chris Jacobs was sworn in this morning. See clerk.house.gov. Tbesteditor (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Justin Amash

Is Justin Amash technically still a member of the minority caucus? He left the Republican party, but still chairs the Liberty Caucus. Specifically, he "caucus' with the Republicans", the exact terminology we use on the Senate page for Bernie Sanders and Angus King. Doesn't that mean he still has to succumb to the Minority Whip? I couldn't really find information on this, mainly because the rules regarding third parties and independents in congress are basically nonexistent. In my opinion, the graphic should show him as part of the Minority Caucus. KingWither (talk) 17:28, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

He resigned from the Republican Conference and his committee positions. He is no longer a member of the minority caucus. JTRH (talk) 19:33, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Members can caucus with whichever party they wish no matter what party(or none at all) they are from. He is part of the minority since independent members are not part of a party Infinity2323236 (talk) 09:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

And now he just switched to the LP, or at least he announced he’s running for the LP nomination, which means he has to have LP membership. Should we change to reflect that? Somethingdiscrete (talk) 02:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Infinity2323236:, @Somethingdiscrete:, @KingWither:, seeing as though this is a special circumstance, should he be placed with whichever side he votes more with? Regardless of whether its the minority or majority? - Navarre0107 (talk) 00:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Paul Mitchell

Paul Mitchell announced today that he is leaving the GOP over disgust with party leadership, announcing himself as an independent. Would it be appropriate to update the membership to reflect this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nekomancerjade (talk • contribs) 21:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Congressional District Map

The print on this is unreadable to me, even when expanded. Can anythign be done? Jokem (talk) 05:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Jokem, the map needs one more level of zooming in (or a new map) to be useable and readable. Jurisdicta (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Latest election results and current party standings

Someone want to explain the table in this section to me??? From this table it would appear that 221-211=11 and 20+27=50. And what does 'Majority' mean and where does the number 11 come from (what happened to the other 39?)? Why is 'Working majority' in the table if there are zero of them?

I followed the 'source' link and it does not have any of these figures in it, so for the ones that aren't simply math, a (different) source needs to be added. ...And if you're going to put 'Source:' under a table, then actually write the source name out. Otherwise just enter your 'source' like a normal footnote (examples of proper use of 'Source:' can be found on the page '1993 Verdy Kawasaki season' - "Source: J.LEAGUE OFFICIAL RECORD & DATA 1994. ISBN 4-09-102309-6." - and on the page '2020 K League 2' - "Source: Official website of K League SOCCERWAY".)Niccast (talk) 00:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2021

Claudia Tenney was certified as the winner of New York's 22nd congressional district race on Feb 5, 2021. Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).https://www.syracuse.com/politics/cny/2021/02/claudia-tenney-to-be-certified-as-winner-of-new-yorks-22nd-race.html This brings the Republicans to 212 seats not 211. Please update. Devinuren9 (talk) 23:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. According to that linked article, there may be an appeal, and the House needs to vote to seat her, so the seat is still vacant. When she is seated in the House, then the Wikipedia article can be updated. RudolfRed (talk) 00:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

special elections not explained

There is no explanation how these work (different for Senators) - can a link be added to the byelection article? This is protected so I cannot do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.30.115 (talk) 07:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

What verbiage would you suggest to be included in the article? I found this source which talks about the procedure. https://history.house.gov/Institution/Vacancies-Successors/Vacancies-Successors/ Thoughts? Jurisdicta (talk) 04:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

"United STates House of Representatives" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect United STates House of Representatives. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 26#United STates House of Representatives until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:47, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2022

The information on Congressional retirements is incorrect. The formula for calculating them changed in 2013 and no longer includes the 1.7% multiplier times years of service. https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/RL30631.pdf Wrestlingterp (talk) 15:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Please also indicate precise location of change. Goldsztajn (talk) 12:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Republican won the special election in California

I guess it was CA-25. Number of Republicans therefore increases to 209.

62.226.76.229 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:22, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2022

I would like to edit the number of seats for Republicans and Vacant seats. With the seating of Mike Flood, there are currently 211 Republicans and 4 Vacant seats. The page currently is inaccurate as it says 210 Republicans and 5 Vacant seats. Someone needs to update this. Dxiedxig (talk) 09:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Note: as the count has now been updated at house.gov, I have updated the numbers (or rather un-reverted the update) and the citation. -- Visviva (talk) 14:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2022

Change (220) to (219) as the number of democratic members (to match the correct number 219) in the majority number directly above. 173.68.22.243 (talk) 23:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: I can't find anything that says "220" on the page. --Ferien (talk) 09:09, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Majorities

I am a bit puzzled by the various "majorities" values in the chart, and in particular the state majorities. Is there an authoritative source that we can verify these from directly, rather than just hand-counting the List of current members of the United States House of Representatives?

More generally, I wonder if this constantly-changing information about the current composition of the body would be better addressed in the 117th United States Congress article (et seq.), which can also accommodate information on the stories behind the numbers. For example, that article can address the fact that Peltola hasn't yet been sworn in, which seems to have been the source of some well-intentioned but premature updates, and which would be an excessive level of detail here. Visviva (talk) 00:02, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2022

On the bottom, there is a spot on the page where party representation in the House is shown. This spot says there are only 2 vacancies, but there are 3 vacancies now, with the resignation of Representative Ted Deutch of Florida. 206.246.7.180 (talk) 13:30, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:09, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2022

The grate compromise is known amongst kids as the big daddy changing machine 162.201.166.18 (talk) 23:12, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. MadGuy7023 (talk) 23:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2022

"Seven states have only one representative: Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming." This is false as of 10/11/2022. Montana now has 2 representatives. This line should be changed to: "Six states have only one representative: Alaska, Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming." 192.222.131.25 (talk) 18:42, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done:The second representative in Montana won’t be seated until January, so the statement is correct as-is for now. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 19:39, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2023

As of the 3rd of January 2023, the 118th Congress has begun, and Republicans have taken control of the House of Representatives. Therefore, the color and maps detailing the composition of the House should be changed. AnthonyNVLe (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

The 20th Amendment makes clear that the terms of the Representatives and Senators begin at noon on January 3. 2600:4040:2540:A100:3481:A236:8B5D:75D9 (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Reverted, but see: https://twitter.com/MattGlassman312/status/1610411842131857411 Etsaloto (talk) 23:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

INCORRECT - Its not vacant!!

According to the U.S. Constitution, the members take office at noon Jan 3rd. Regardless of whether a SPEAKER is chosen. If you don't believe me, simply check the U.S. GOVERNMENT WEBSITE that shows thus (house.gov). Jpleden (talk) 23:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Reverted, but see: https://twitter.com/MattGlassman312/status/1610411842131857411 Etsaloto (talk) 23:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Matt Glassman tweet doesn't override the plain text of the 20th Amendment to the United States Constitution. House.gov official directory has also been updated. 2600:4040:2540:A100:3481:A236:8B5D:75D9 (talk) 02:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Currently it says they have yet to be sworn in - I believe that should suffice with the 118th composition. The 118th Congress has not been sworn in and cannot legislate but it has sat and the 117th Congress is no more. Kind of a no mans land but having the disclaimer is the best option. Cliffmore (talk) 03:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2023

Under “Salary and Benefits,” the second sentence of the second paragraph below the “Title” sub-heading reads:

“For example, Democratic House speaker Nancy Pelosi, who represents California's 12th congressional district within San Francisco, may be identified as "D–California," "D–California–12" or "D–San Francisco."“

“House speaker” should be replaced with “congresswoman.” Sirdatary (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 20:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect grammar: "those of which that are also passed"... Please choose either "those of which are" or "those that are" (I suggest the latter).

Fourth paragraph, first sentence: "The House is charged with the passage of federal legislation, known as bills; those of which that are also passed by the Senate are sent to the president for consideration." 24.161.74.101 (talk) 21:00, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

RfC on the Start of the terms for Members of the House in 118th Congress

Did the new members of the US House during the 118th congress actually take office on January 3, 2023? There are many people on Wikipedia who say that the 20th Amendment guarantees that members take office on noon January 3, 2023. However, many prominent legal scholars and news sources (sourced below) say otherwise. The point of this RfC is to put the correct date as agreed to by members of the Wiki community. Bbraxtonlee (talk) 03:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Survey

  • IMO the Representatives have not formally taken office yet. In fact, the new first-time Representatives have not even been sworn in yet. From what I read, they can't be sworn in until there is a Speaker. But IMO this is too trivial a nit to pick, especially for an article which is about the 200-plus-year old institution of Congress, not the situation of the moment. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Modifying my opinion: I now believe that for all of them, their terms began on January 3. Because they were there in the chamber on January 3 as members-elect, answering to a roll call and casting votes. (See my note below, about many of them issuing pre-written press releases saying that they were sworn in on January 3 by the Speaker of the House. Well, turns out they weren't. But they were there and voting.) -- MelanieN (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
    B**** b********** 103.150.17.178 (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
  • The 118th US Congress convened at Noon EST, 3 January 2023. Oath or no oath, the terms of the members of the House & the Senate (who were elected or re-elected in Nov 2022), began. Otherwise, who were those people, voting for the Speaker? GoodDay (talk) 03:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
  • They're already voting (for Speaker), so they're definitely in office. They have not been formally sworn in yet, but it makes more sense, given the fact that they are all voting as members of Congress, to consider that a formality rather than an actual requirement of office. Loki (talk) 19:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
  • My opinion is that for the purposes of the United States Constitution, all members of the United States House of Representatives took office at noon on January 3, 2023. We have treated members sworn in on a later day as terms beginning on January 3 in the past. We have considered members sworn in December prior to the adoption of the 20th Amendment as members beginning on March 4. Salaries are considered to begin at noon on January 3. Though not a member of the House, Zachary Taylor, a constitutional officer as President, is considered to have assumed office on January 3, despite not taking the oath till the next day due to religious concerns. The current members of the House are constitutionally members but cannot execute the duties of their office as they have not taken the oath of office, rendering them *like* members-elect, resulting in terminology like members-elect on the floor. The business of electing the Speaker is part of organization of the House (dating back to the the 1st Congress in 1789), and only House members can constitutionally choose the Speaker (the Speaker is not chosen in the previous Congress, but the current Congress), further supporting that they are legally members, but act as if they are members-elect. The policy should be to defer to the constitutional interpretation, despite members not being able to act like members and are treated like members-elect. Muhibm0307 (talk) 01:15, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Zachary Taylor became US President on March 4, 1849 & took his oath of office on March 5, 1849. GoodDay (talk) 03:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Meant that. Muhibm0307 (talk) 14:00, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Deschler's Precedents, which is used by the House Parliamentarian, has a section on "Status of Members and Delegates-elect" which lays out the limited powers of the members-elect, as distinguished from members, and one of those powers is electing the speaker. In footnote 13 the constitutional issue is dealt with "the Constitution impliedly empowers Members-elect to vote for a Speaker (under art. I, § 2, clause 5, the House chooses a Speaker before the House is sworn)" -- Jfhutson (talk) 15:16, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, but such a move would require changing the date of assuming office for everybody not sworn in on January 3 or March 4 (before the 1930s), and other evidence appears to suggest they are, to an extent, members, but distinguished from members who haven't taken the oath. The text of the 20th Amendment also says the term begins at noon, and doesn't suggest that assumption of office necessarily requires an oath, but other parts of the Constitution suggest that execution of the office requires an oath. Muhibm0307 (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
I think this is resolved by stating the dates of their terms however the best reliable sources say; I don't think any reliable sources will create "interregna" like has been suggested on this talk page. But it is clear that they are not members and are in fact "members-elect" until sworn in, and the best reliable sources refer to them as such. So when we refer to them during the election of the speaker we should call them "members-elect," and not with some kind of qualifier that this is just a semantic issue, because it seems that they are not in fact members of the House right now. -- Jfhutson (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
In addition, though not members of the House, appointed Senators are considered to have taken office on their date of appointment, not the date they take the oath. Muhibm0307 (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
A similar thing happens with House members elected in Special elections, too. Mary Peltola was elected in August, and sworn into the House about a month later in September. However, her Congress BioGuide credits her House service has beginning as in August (her election day), not September (her swearing in day). https://bioguide.congress.gov/search/bio/P000619 Canuck89 (Gab with me) or visit my user page 23:53, January 5, 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

  • @Reppop and GoodDay: I see yall a lot on the same pages I do, so maybe if yall had thoughts on this I would appreciate lol. Bbraxtonlee (talk) 03:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
It would likely be resisted, if any editor went around the bios of the newly elected House members & reverted their assumption of seats or went to the re-elected House members & edit them as though they were no longer House members. GoodDay (talk) 03:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
@GoodDay: yeh thats why I did an RfC because while there is resistance, in the end virtually all members of the Wiki community will follow an RfC even if they hate it. But I get what you are saying. Bbraxtonlee (talk) 03:55, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Ask yourself this. Who were the people voting for the Speaker? If we say that since Noon Est (Jan 3, 2023), there's been no members of the House? Then nobody can be elected Speaker, because there's nobody to vote for Speaker. GoodDay (talk) 03:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
@GoodDay: That's what I thought about at first, but you really can't use that as an excuse due to the fact that the actual House website says "Representatives-elect". The Rep-elects vote for speaker, which is a confusing concept to think about and makes it so much more complicated & beyond just the 20th Amendement. Bbraxtonlee (talk) 04:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Check out this document from the House Parliamentarian which states that members-elect vote for the speaker. "Three of the powers [of members-elect] authorizing participation in proceedings arise from constitutional provisions: being called for the quorum, voting for Speaker, and demanding the yeas and nays. All of those steps may occur in the House before Members are sworn, and before their rights to seats are determined." -- Jfhutson (talk) 15:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Even if it takes them a few days to get this worked out and a Speaker elected, I think their terms can all reasonably be said to have begun on January 3. As I said above, this is a technical and possibly disputable detail, and the actual date can be passed over or assumed, without the need for discussion and formal, legal resolution. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
I look at it this way. Imaging going through the bios of every US representative & every US Senator in the country's history. Having to change the tenure dates in the intros & infoboxes? For example, did Pelosi cease to be a US representative on 3 January 2023 & is now out of office, until she re-takes the oath? GoodDay (talk) 07:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
  • I would say that the House is currently 100% vacant. None of the Representatives have taken office and they are treated as Representatives-elect, not as Representatives.
Also, the 20th Amendment says that the term expires on January 3rd at noon. It never clarifies the beginning of a term.
And to reply everything that has been discussed, yes, it is Representatives-elect who elect the new Speaker. And later the Speaker is the person who has to administer the Oath of all Representatives. They have done it this way since the 1940s if I recall correctly. Gufand (talk) 12:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
I doubt changing the 434 seats to 'Vacant' at (for example) the 118th United States Congress page, would go over well. GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Interesting side note: a number of members-elect, including the notorious George Santos but others too, issued an identically worded announcement saying that they were "sworn in as a Member of the United States House of Representatives by the Speaker of the House on January 3rd, 2023".[2] Of course, they weren't. The statements were apparently a form notice, pre-written, and released on Tuesday on the assumption that things would go normally. But a least they were members-elect, they were there in the chamber, casting votes, and I think that for purposes of history it can be stated that for all of them, their terms began on January 3. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Another thought. By declaring that their terms haven't begun on 3 January 2023? We'd have to delete all the House member names at the 118th United States Congress page & replace all 434 of them, each with the word "Vacant". Don't think that would work out too well. Also, going over to the Democratic party & Republican party pages & having "0/435" in the House parameter of their infoboxes? Wouldn't pass the mustered. GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Question: This kind of thing (multiple tries to elect a speaker) has happened before. For instance, in 1855 it took two months and 133 tries.[3] How do we handle cases like these? Presumably this one should be handled the same way, unless RSs treat it differently for some reason. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, an IP has span edited the dates to January 7, 2023. The IP should get a consensus for that, first. GoodDay (talk) 06:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Sources

Against January 3, 2023:

For January 3, 2023:

The plain text of the amendment states that terms end on January the 3rd, but not that new terms begin at the same time. It seems fair to consider all house members Representatives-elect until sworn in. Yilmaz1001 (talk) 06:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Representatives-elect can't vote for who'll be Speaker of the House, though. GoodDay (talk) 06:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
@GoodDay: If this is true how come the Clerk says "Member-elect" when referring to someone by their name in the actual video? I think it is more of a confusing concept and honestly regret this RfC because it should just stay January 3. Bbraxtonlee (talk) 07:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree that it should stay 3 January. Imagine (for example) having Nancy Pelosi's House tenure ending 3 January 2023, only later to restart on 4 or 5 January 2023? GoodDay (talk) 07:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
They do, though.
House Rules and Manual, § 27: "The Speaker is elected by a majority of Members-elect voting by surname, a quorum being present" Ringwiss1 (talk) 10:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

"Swearing in date" does not necessarily mean start date. There are some times where the new Congress convenes after January 3rd if the 3rd falls on a weekend. For example, the 114th Congress first convened on Tuesday January 6th (January 3rd was a Saturday that year). All the terms of the members of the 114th Congress still began on the 3rd that year, but the election of the Speaker and the swearing in of the members didn't happen until January 6th.

Also, the 20th amendment plainly states...

'...and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.'

The "and the terms of their successors shall then begin" clearly implies that every January 3rd shall be the beginning of the terms of the new members of Congress from there on out.

The "swearing in" is merely a formality required to exercise their powers of office as legislators. They are members of the House (as per the 20th amendment). They just can't exercise their powers of office (i.e., voting on legislation) until a Speaker gets elected so the House can set its agenda.

If you're going to pass an RFC that states that "swearing in date" = "start date", you're going to need to go through the members of every Congress where the new Congress decided to convene on a different date than the Constitution prescribes (January 3rd post-20th, and March 4th pre-20th) and manually adjust every member's "start date" for where the new Congress decided to delay the swearing in ceremonies and the election of the speaker for the new Congress Canuck89 (Chat with me) or visit my user page 17:51, January 4, 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, it would look quite unusual if we were to 'delete' all House members from their seats at the 118th United States Congress & replace them with Vacant. GoodDay (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
You would also need to add tons of micro-interregnums for all the 3-minute gaps between noon on Inauguration Day and the completion of the President's Oath of Office, despite that not at all being recognized by law. 2600:4040:2540:A100:3481:A236:8B5D:75D9 (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Jefferson's Manual states that "a Member-elect becomes a Member from the very beginning of the term to which elected (I, 500), that he is as much an officer of the Government before taking the oath as afterwards (I, 185), and that his status is distinguished from that of a Member who has qualified (I, 183, 184)." [4]https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/HMAN-112/pdf/HMAN-112-jeffersonman.pdf Muhibm0307 (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

IP span editing

@47.205.116.13: has span edited the date to January 3, 2023, across the House member bios. GoodDay (talk) 06:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

He was changing the date to January 7. Looks like they have all been reverted to January 3. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Election section

As of 2022, first-past-the-post or plurality voting is adopted in 46 states, ranked-choice or instant-runoff voting in two states (Alaska and Maine), and two-round system in two states (Georgia and Mississippi).

in the 2020 election write-up it is written that Forty-seven states used the first-past-the-post voting plurality system to elect their representatives. Instant-runoff voting was used in one state (Maine) and runoff system was used in two states (Georgia and Louisiana). so some discrepancy.. Ballotpedia website writes In Alaska, winners in congressional contests are determined via ranked-choice voting. [IRV] 68.150.209.131 (talk) 16:30, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

The United States House of Representatives is the lower chamber of the United States Congress, with the Senate being the upper chamber.

The two Houses of Congress are equal, one is not superior to the other. The House of Representatives is not the "lower chamber" nor is the Senate the "upper chamber"

The United States House of Representatives represents The People in Congress, the Senate represents the States in Congress. Johnny Xavier (talk) 04:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2023

Rhode Island’s 1st congressional seat became vacant yesterday. 24.46.59.173 (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lightoil (talk) 00:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Chris Stewart seat is vacant

His seat is vacant he resigned September 15 number of vacancies should be updated 67.220.0.231 (talk) 13:29, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Patrick McHenry, Speaker Pro Tempore

With McCarthy’s ouster, should we add that Patrick McHenry of North Carolina will serve as Speaker Pro Tempore until a Speaker’s election is held? In the infobox, I mean. Technically, McHenry is Speaker. I’m not sure what the protocol is… Juneau Mike (talk) 21:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Never mind, it’s been included as suggested. Much appreciated!Juneau Mike (talk) 14:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2023

When hovering over the name of current speaker Patrick McHenry in the box on the right, it shows "hhggg" as description. Wi8989 (talk) 14:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 14:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Chris Stewart's seat filled by Celeste Maloy

Chris Stewart's vacant seat has been filled by Republican Celeste Maloy so the vacancy should be updated. The vacant seat page here Seniority in the United States House of Representatives has already been updated to reflect that there are no vacancies. Lancejco (talk) 17:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

This seat is still vacant according to: Vacancies in the 118th Congress, List of Representatives (starting from Utah), and the website for UT-02. The update at the page you've mentioned is out of line with how vacancies generally work. AG202 (talk) 03:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

George Santos Expelled

On December 1st, Representative of New York's Third District George Anthony Devolder Santos was expelled from the House of Representatives by a resolution vote, which ended in Yea - 311 v Nay - 113. 2.135.66.130 (talk) 16:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_House_of_Representatives/Archive_1&oldid=1214989788"