Talk:United States House of Representatives

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former featured article United States House of Representatives is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 5, 2006.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Peer review This Socsci article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated Start-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia The spoken word version of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles. To participate, visit the project page.

An event in this article is a April 1 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment).


Contents

[edit] gerrymagering=

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.

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.)



[edit] 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

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

  • It is up to the states, absent congressional intervention. The 1842 Apportionment Bill, an Act of Congress, mandated the single-member district rule that is in place today. I've now made the change in the article. See General ticket.—Mark Adler (markles) 18:54, 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] Item identification

House of Representatives

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)

[edit] 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"

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)