Talk:United States Senate/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Old notes

Initializing the bot, set to archive threads inactive for a year or more. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 17:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Privileges?

Shouldn't there be a section on some of the privileges that US Senators enjoy? Jarwulf 20:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that would largely depend on what would be considered a privelige? Most of the priveliges that Senators enjoy can be found in this article and the article on the Constitution. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 22:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Committees

I have begun work on creating pages for the standing Senate committees. I am using the full name, as in U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services and U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry. I am using these names because that's how they are named in the Senate Rules, and because that's how they were linked on the Senate page.

It's been difficult finding histories of the various committees, so the work has been slow. I've been trying to include a brief history, the committee jurisdiction, and the current sitting members (including chairman and ranking Dem.) I've also included the subcommittees (even harder to find information on) and their chairs and ranking Dems. The two I linked above are the only ones I've done so far; the Appropriations committee has been started by someone else and I haven't looked at it yet. I'm working on the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs now.

Friedo 17:04, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Operation

I don't think a filibuster is the most significant element of the Senate's operations; at best this is a procedural oddity with some real political effects. Much more important are what it actually does. --Delirium 06:14, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC) There are 17, not 16 standing committies! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.167.116.133 (talk) 10:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

apportioning?

how is it that states only vote for a senator a year? also, (and I know this is a little off topic), how is the australian senate apportioned? I know that each australian state has 12 senators. how do they work it so that the state doesn't have to vote for all 12 senators a year?

Australia uses a system of proportional representation called single transferable vote. Australians vote for 6 Sens at a time.

America's system of voting (plurality wins, winner take all) is actually unusual in international perspective. Our voting system is called first past the post. FPTP leads to a two party system, PR leads to a multi-party system. PR is not the same thing as "parliamentary government."

US Senators serve 6-year terms; these are staggered, such that one-third of the Senate is elected every two years. This ensures that, at any given time, at least one Senator from a given state has at least two years' experience, and that each state only has to endure one Senatorial contest at a time. - jredmond 21:58, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Confirmation

Is confirmation done by a majority, or some other type of plurality? Does it vary depending on the office? This information would be very useful; the current paragraph on confirmation is very brief. --LostLeviathan 20:14, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The actual Senate vote to confirm a presidential appointment requires a simple majority to pass, but in practical terms, getting to a vote under Senate procedures requires a three-fifths majority to invoke cloture on debate (though three-fifths is a requirement that the Senate has chosen to impose upon itself, not a requirement imposed anywhere by the Constitution). In remaining vague, the paragraph may be sensibly sidestepping these difficulties. Pgva 21:02, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I move to break out big sections

We are getting an advisory that this page is getting too big. I move that the following sections be broken into individual pages, with a short synopsis and link to the new pages:

1 Composition and elections 2 Specific Powers 3 Operation 4 History weide 17:18, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

History has been broken out which makes the page more concise. Others should probably as well. --sebmol 02:52, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If history wasn't worthy of being in the main article, I suggest that the tables and lists should be taken out as well. If you measure a section's worth by information per column inch, the lists of committees etc are not so valuable. I move especially that the list of impeachments be put into a separate page. The impeachment listings are trivial, IMO. dinopup

There is probably some truth to that. There is a practice I saw in some other Wikipedias that create a portal on a subject that presents links to articles on the same subject. So, if there was, for example, portal on the United States government, it wouldn't necessarily have much content itself but instead serve as a "portal" to most/all articles directly related to the government. I'm trying to find out if there's any precedent for that sort of thing on this one. The advantage would be that we could remove some of these "link-tables" without losing the structural aides. Any suggestions?

--sebmol 04:02, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Filler-Buster

I came to the Uited States Senate page looking for something about the filler-buster and what it is. I watch the CNN news very occationally from my Aussie TV and they had this debate about the likelyhood that the Filler-Buster was going to be removed from the senate. I'm not very educated in politics but Im interested to know what it is about. Lightamplification 13:00, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

You mean filibuster. That movement was called the nuclear option. Check out those pages. --JohnM 07:34, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Two questionable lines

"In general, however, the right to unlimited debate is preserved."

Can someone confirm that this is still true? I know a lot of bills have passed recently with no time to read the bill or discuss it, though that may have been in the House, not the Senate. Some bills (like the PATRIOT Act) have been voted on before they were even printed and with very little discussion allowed [1].

Unanimous consent agreements can limit debate. If any senator objects, however, debate cannot be limited except by cloture. -- Emsworth 13:14, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"the Senate may stipulate that the party be banned from holding office in the future" after impeachment.

Can someone confirm this? They can ban a whole party? Dave (talk) 12:37, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

"Party" refers not to the political party, but to "party" as in the defendant. Yes, they can ban the defendant from holding office in the future. -- Emsworth 13:13, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

History section of article

I suggest that the size of the history section be reduced. It repeats (almost verbatim) material from the History of the Senate, listed as main article. A smaller section here might be an improvement. Any comments? Lou I 20:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Probably the Wrong Place

to ask this question, but.....

In any particular state of the US, it appears (to an outsider) that a US Senator for a particular state has more prestige, more influence and be further up the political "totem pole" than a congressman from that state.

In that vein, which is more prestigious - a Senator from a State or the Governor of that State? Does it depend on the size of the state so that Senators of small states beat their governors but the Governor of California has more influence than a US Senator from California?

Avalon 05:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

It depends. The Governor of a state has no position in the Federal government, so on a national level, Senators have more influence. The things Senators do affect everyone in the country, the things Governors do affect only their own state. --71.225.229.151 22:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, most (possibly all) states have term limits for Governors, so that they will be in office for at most 8 years (some states, like Virginia, limit them to a single 4 year term). Since a single Senate term in 6 years, and many are reelected, this means that most Senators will have been in office longer than their state Governor, adding to their prestige (especially Senators who have been in office much longer, like Ted Kennedy or Robert Byrd). It's also important to keep in mind though that in running for President, Governors have an advangtage due to their experience running an executive branch and their removal from the generally unpopular messiness of Congressional politics. JFK was the last Senator to be elected President from that office, all since have been state Governors or Vice-President.Ddye 13:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Single Senator passes law?

Maybe someone can explain that to me, and maybe this someone would also inlcude it in the article:

How come a single senator can pass a bill?

Several US media report today, that the Patriot Act has been extended for another 5 weeks by the House and the Senate. In the Senate, only one Senator was present. E.g. the LAtimes writes: "...passed by voice vote in a near-empty House and by unanimous consent hours later in the Senate, with just one lawmaker — Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), who lives nearby — present."

Isn't there a necessity for a quorum?

TiA! 213.47.57.135 21:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

A quorum is required; however, a quorum is assumed to be present until it is questioned. See http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/quorum.htm 70.161.91.189 23:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

That seems rather wacky to me. If one Senator (or a small group of Senators) would want to decide on something, he/they would never question the quorum. Is there a procedural element by which a Senator (or a minority group of Senators) can have the assumption of the presence of the quorum checked at a later point in time? Like: "Hey, that vote is invalid, as the quorum wasn't given. We should declare it invalid." Ds77

No. 21:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Any vote on any measure is final unless it is reconsidered. Only senators who voted for the prevailing site can reconsider a bill. Usually, it is expected that the pro tem will pay attention to quorum and, if the measure is suitably controversial, order a quorum count. But, since the vast majority of bills that make it to the floor aren't controversial, there's no point in the quorum count. This is also evidenced by the large number of unanimous consent votes in the Senate. sebmol 22:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Why Senators Recieve A 6 Year Term?

The Representives recieve a 2 year term. The president recieves a 4 year term. Why does a senator recieve a 6 year term? That is even higher than the Commander and Chief! Why is it higher and why 6 years? Just a thought. Zachorious 09:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• First, the framers of the Constitution wanted to have a range of tenures, going from two years (Representatives) to life (Supreme Court justices and many other judges). Second, although now it's clear that the executive is the most powerful of the three branches, this wasn't so clear in the Constitution. In fact, you'll notice that the first of the seven articles deals with the legislative branch, not the executive. The framers most likely felt that the Senate, as an august body of senior statesmen chosen by the state legislatures (not directly elected by the people), would be the most important part of the US government, and so gave them the longest tenure. Interlingua ^{talk email} 03:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Seating schematic

Where do the senators sit? Are there designated seats at all? Are there opposition benches and government benches? Do members seat by seniority? Do they speak from their seats? Just curious. Fishhead64 22:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes there is a seating chart. Each senator has their own desk on the Senate floor. In general, Republicans sit on the right side of the center aisle and Democrats sit on the left side (looking from the point of view of the members). The majority leaders of each party are assigned to the desks farthest front and center on their side. Seating is then assigned on basis of senority so the newest senators are seated in the back corners and they move forward and toward the middle over time. Some senators, however, choose to remain in the back-row or keep a specific desk because a relative or famous predecessor sat there.

Senators often speak from their own desks, though they may occasionally speak from their party leader's desk as the leaders have lecturns to allow easier paper management.

There are no "benches" in the Senate like there are in the House. Senators managing floor debates on legislation usually speak from their own desk or their party leader's desk.

--72.75.39.31 03:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

There are three desks occupied by the senior senators from specific states. The Daniel Webster desk for New Hampshire, the Jefferson Davis desk for Mississippi, and the Henry Clay desk for Kentucky. -Rrius (talk) 20:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Election dates question

How is it decided on which date an election for the senate takes place? I could not find this information in the article. S Sepp 15:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Found the answer: Tuesday after the first Monday in November in "even years". Maybe it should be mentioned in the article. S Sepp 15:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that's the date set in the Constitution for elections in general (either that or it set that as the presidential election date and the others follow suit out of common sense), but you're right, it couldn't hurt to mention it. Moulder 21:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The answer is that the Constitution leaves the date for choosing Representatives and Senators to the states unless the Congress provides for a date. Congress chose the first Tuesday after the first Monday for Representatives in 1875 (the date is now codified as 2 U.S.C. § 7). In 1914, following the 1913 ratification of the 17th Amendment, Congress linked the election date for Senators to that of Representatives. 2 U.S.C. § 1. -Rrius (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Dean

Please excuse me, gentlemen, but what determines who is the Dean of Senate if there is a tie between two senators?--Anglius 02:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

First off, the chances of that happening is unlikey, as by the time they would become dean, chances are they are the only one of their class left. However, their is a method of breaking ties for determining seniority, which I assume they would follow in this case. It involves looking at prior service in Congress, Service as Governor, and the size of the state they are from (I believe in that order. eric

I appreciate your information, sir.--Anglius 19:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Are there any controls on financial conduct?

There's nothing in the article about what Senators are allowed to do to make extra money. Are there any regulations, or is it a total free for all in terms of taking freebies, "consultancy fees", speaking and writing fees, directorships given in exchange for political favours and so on? ReeseM 02:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Bricker Amendment

For some time I have been working on revisions to the Bricker Amendment article. I finally posted it and have a PR at Wikipedia:Peer review/Bricker Amendment/archive1. I'd welcome comments. I know all those references may seem extravagant, but I'm hoping to get it as an FA and those voters want lots of footnotes. PedanticallySpeaking 16:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Minority Party

What happens if more than two parties are sitting in the Senate? 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)

the last time was the 1890s when the Populists had a few Senators. They did not organize themselves in any way. Independents come and go (there is now one from Vermont) but they always join either the GOP or the Dem caucus. Rjensen 08:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Seal

There seems to be two coats of arms for the Senate. One is the official seal, shown in the article, but there appears to be another one that has a hat, a stars and stripes shield, and two fasci. Can someone explain that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.196.116.2 (talk • contribs) .

Do you have a link to a picture of the alternate seal? Thanks. · j e r s y k o talk · 18:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Minimum high regard

The word "regard" seems to be used only via verb-derived forms; the rule about exhibiting a minimum high regard for colleagues and the insult about holding a minimum high regard for a particular colleague should be discussed, along with other aspects of supposed (internal) "comity".
--Jerzy•t 18:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Presiding officer

I question the need to have the information about the VP being president of the Senate, at the beginning of the article. The same information is avaliable in the officers section of the article. Thoughts? eric 21:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Editing

Just to let you know, I got a message saying that removing a sentence of this article without contributing myself is vandalism, however the thing I removed itself was vandalism, so I don't see how that works out... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Avantgarde1226 (talk • contribs) .

The vandalism message was either a mistake or spurious (I don't know who left it). Thanks for fixing the vandalism in this article, actually. · j e r s y k o talk · 04:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I sincerley wish to apoligize for leaving the vandal message, I left it on the wrong talk page. Once again I apoligize for the mistake, and wish to thank you for your contributions. eric 23:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Purple/Magenta state?

I notice Wikipedia calls a state with a Republican and a Democrat senator as a so-called 'Magenta' state but this is not a popular media term. CNN calls them a "Purple" state and this is a more approriate term, in my view. Magenta isn't a mainstream term. Regards, 24.86.78.109 09:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Totals

At present there are 49 democrats, 49 republicans, 1 Connecticut for Lieberman, and 1 Independent.

The Majority party is decided by the number in a given party. If there is a tie, then the Vice President breaks that tie. Independents and Third Parties do not effect this rule unless they caucus.

Lieberman and Sanders were voted in as Independents. They are choosing to Caucus with the Democrats.

So that makes it 51 against the Republican's 49.

So why is it that everyone was looking at Virginia? If you rewind to a few days ago the score was 50-49 because Sanders and Lieberman still caucused. Is that not technically a control of the Senate? What's going on here? SargeAbernathy 01:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

First, in the case of a fifty-fifty split, Senate majority goes to the party in control of the Vice Presidency, due to the Vice President being the tie-breaking vote. Second, Lieberman has already changed his party affiliation back to Democrat (well, really, declared his intention to officially remain a Democrat in the next term), so the count is 50D-49R-1I, or for caucusing purposes 51D-49R. Jpers36 06:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

AH! Damn it, my math confused me, I see it ... so simple. Ugh. SargeAbernathy 15:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Governors and balance of power in Senate

If I understand correctly, if a vacancy occurs in the Senate, the governor of the state in question (except Arizona) would appoint a replacement to serve until the next election (2008). I assume that means that if a Democratic Senator, in a state with a Republican governor, were to leave office through death, disability, or whatever, the balance of power in the Senate could shift abruptly back to the Republicans, since a Republican governor would presumably appoint a Republican to fill such a vacancy. Conversely, if a Republican Senator were to die or retire, a Democratic state governor would presumably replace him/her with a Democrat and increase the Democrats' majority. (I assume no "gentlemen's agreements" exist to forestall such possibilities.) It might be useful to add to this article (or perhaps another article dealing specifically with the just-elected Senate or the Congress as a whole) a list of states in which the governor is from a different party from one or both of the Senators from that state. Comments? Richwales 07:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Positions that the President can appoint WITHOUT Senate approval

The term, "rare", for the number of positions the President can appoint without Senate approval may be a little too strong. I open this section to list them to see if the work, rare, should be changed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mnw2000 (talk • contribs).

• National Security Advisor
• Chief of Staff

There are about 2,000 positions that the President can appoint without Senate confirmation. [2] How many of them are "important" is debatable, but certainly positions like Chief of Staff, National Security Advisor, and White House Counsel have enormous influence in the executive branch. Personally, I think that the current wording of the article ("The President cannot... with rare exception, make important appointments... without the advice and consent of the Senate.") is accurate. - Walkiped 06:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if better wording would be something along the lines of "most significantly, in most cases, the President cannot ratify treaties or, make..." eric 06:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

How about this:

“ The Constitution provides that the President can make certain appointments only with the advice and consent of the Senate. Officials whose appointments require the Senate's approval include members of the Cabinet, heads of most federal executive agencies, ambassadors, Justices of the Supreme Court, and other federal judges. However, Congress has passed legislation to authorize the appointment of many officials without the Senate's consent (usually, confirmation requirements are reserved for those officials with the most significant final decision-making authority). Typically, a nominee is first subject to a hearing before a Senate committee. Committees may block nominees, but do so relatively infrequently. Thereafter, the nomination is considered by the full Senate. In a majority of the cases, nominees are confirmed; rejections of Cabinet nominees are especially rare (there have been only nine nominees rejected outright in the history of the United States). ”

Thesmothete 07:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

How about changing the word "rare", to "limited". It has a better ring. user:mnw2000 16:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Thesmothete's suggested text is well-written and accurate. - Walkiped 18:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that that sounds good, although I am concerened that it is too long for the introduction of the article. Perhaps we keep it brief at the beginning, and then have a section later on to expend when the Senate's concent is and is not required? eric 00:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, a new version, based on the foregoing comments:

“ The Constitution provides several unique functions for the Senate that form its ability to "check and balance" the powers of other elements of the Federal Government. These include the requirement that the Senate may advise and must consent to the President's government appointments; also the Senate must ratify all treaties with foreign governments; it tries all impeachments, and it elects the Vice President in the event no person gets a majority of the electoral votes.

The President can make certain appointments only with the advice and consent of the Senate. Officials whose appointments require the Senate's approval include members of the Cabinet, heads of most federal executive agencies, ambassadors, Justices of the Supreme Court, and other federal judges. Under the Constitution, a large number of government appointments are subject to potential confirmation; however, Congress has passed legislation to authorize the appointment of many officials without the Senate's consent (usually, confirmation requirements are reserved for those officials with the most significant final decision-making authority). Typically, a nominee is first subject to a hearing before a Senate committee. Thereafter, the nomination is considered by the full Senate. The majority of nominees are confirmed, but in a small number of cases each year, Senate Committees will purposely fail to act on a nominations in order to block it. Also, the President sometimes withdraws nominations when they appear unlikely to be confirmed. Because of this, outright rejections of nominees on the Senate Floor are quite infrequent (there have been only nine Cabinet nominees rejected outright in the history of the United States).

”

Thesmothete 01:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thanks, Thesmothete, for taking the lead on this. - Walkiped 01:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Did not Mass. do away with the ability of the Governor to appoint a replacement

With the possibility of Democrat John Kerry winning election to the the Presidency and with a Republican Governor in office, didn't the Democratic state legislature remove the ability of the Governor to appoint a replacement? user:mnw2000 18:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

File:Senateseal.png

The seal currently on the page

Another seal involved in the conflict

The seal defined by the Senate as their seal

Contradiction: Seal

As noted above, there is another seal; a description and image is at Seal of the United States Senate. It should be noted that the Senate website says that the one with the hat and fasces is correct. Comments? LD 20:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you're correct. I've replaced the image with the correct one. - Walkiped ^{(T | C)} 05:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a bit of back and forth editing regarding the Seal of the United States Senate graphic, with some editors pushing Image:SealSenate.png (which has been the graphic on the Senate article for as long as I can remember), and others, including myself, pushing Image:Senate_cap.PNG. We need to decide which graphic we're going to use as the Senate Seal in the U.S. Senate article. As a matter of verifiability, the official website of the United States Senate describes what the official seal looks like, and the graphic it describes is Image:Senate_cap.PNG. Does anyone object to me changing the Senate Seal graphic to Image:Senate_cap.PNG? - Walkiped ^{(T | C)} 18:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, firstly, I would like to say that the top seal is the one I put on the page, replacing the middle one, I did so due to the low resolution of the middle seal. Secondly, I had no idea that the bottom seal was the one defined by the Senate as their seal, so I have no problem with it replacing the top seal on this article. Thirdly and lastly, I don't know what the top and middle seals represent if they are not the seal of the Senate, I think we should look into what they are used for and also include maybe the top seal somewhere else on the page. However, should the bottom seal replace the top seal on the page, there will be alot of articles which carry the top seal and there will be alot of editing to do to change that. Also, to make it harder, there are at least two files of the top seal. As stated above, I don't mind if the bottom seal replaces the top seal, but there will be alot of work to do to change the top seal to the bottom seal on the articles that carry the top seal. (Iuio 08:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC))

Personally, I put the top one in because that's what I've seen everywhere (never seen the middle or bottom before), and couldn't find anything on the bottom when I did a little research. I could have easily been wrong, though; feel free to correct me. WBHoenig 02:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Given Wikipedia's policy on verifiability, I don't see how we can use either of the top two graphics when we've got the official Senate website describing the third graphic as the seal. - Walkiped ^{(T | C)} 08:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I have noted that the Senate describes having an eagle like the one on the presidential seal as its first seal. I'm not too sure whether it is the top or middle seal they are talking about but I suspect that it is the top seal. Also they said the bottom seal was based on the Great Seal of the United States. However, the bottom seal looks nothing like the Great Seal and I think that that might be an error on their part. (Iuio 20:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC))

You're probably right on that; I'm thinking (just to be sure) about emailing one of my senators (or else my favorite senator) and asking. WBHoenig 03:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at the Senate website and a few Senators' websites, and Senator Feinstien's website has a few references to the top only. The favicon is that seal, and in the flash photo animation on the right, there are many shots where the top is clearly visible. I'm not sure if that would qualify as a good source or not; just food for thought. WBHoenig 03:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The Senate's reference to an eagle on the seal is a reference to earlier versions of the Senate seal, not the current version. The first paragraph of that webpage describes the current seal, and based on that description it seems like they're describing the third graphic. As for Feinstein's website, yeah, she does have the top graphic on her website, but nowhere does it actually say that the graphic is the Seal of the United States Senate. I hate to sound like a broken record on this, but the only verifiable source that we have for what graphic to use for the Senate Seal describes the third graphic, so given the policy on verifiability, I think that's the graphic we should go with. - Walkiped ^{(T | C)} 06:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Which senator did you e-mail? By the way, I could not find the top seal anywhere on Senator Feinstein's website. I think that if the bottom seal replaces the top one, that we should at least place the top seal on this article and say that it is the Senate's first seal. (Iuio 21:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC))

I'd be fine with that. - Walkiped ^{(T | C)} 21:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I'd just like to keep one on there (the correct one, of course) for more than a few hours it is switched again. WBHoenig 03:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the people switching the graphic are those unaware of this discussion. As people change the graphic to the wrong one, we can change it back and place a note on their talk page letting them know of the discussion behind the graphic. - Walkiped ^{(T | C)} 18:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

There is some text that is only visible when the article is being edited. We could put the text on this article and tell them not to change the seal graphic. That would save us some typing on user talk pages. If that is ignored, we can then write the user a message. (Iuio 03:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC))

Why every state

Why does every state have the same amount regardless of population? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.64.32.251 (talk • contribs).

This was done to address fears by people in the smaller (less populous) states that they would end up being dominated by the larger states if the new Congress were apportioned strictly on the basis of population. See the article on the Great Compromise. Richwales 17:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Democrats will keep control of the Senate regardless of changes

I just made the change to the article to reflect the fact that the Democrats will keep control of the Senate regardless of any future party switches (Lieberman switching to GOP, Johnson-SD being replaced by a Republican, etc). While this goes against what many may think, a Senate resolution passed in January[3] makes this the rule for this Congress. This is discussed in the Washington Post article I included as a cite[4]:

Republican leaders decided not to seek special language spelling out the terms of a transition in case of a power shift -- say, if Johnson vacates his post and his state's GOP governor appoints a Republican to replace him. Under that scenario, power would effectively shift to Republicans, because Cheney would provide the tiebreaking 51st vote. But for Republicans to take parliamentary control, the Senate would have to vote for new organizational rules, a move Democrats could filibuster. A similar scenario unfolded in January 2001, when a 50-50 Senate convened. In 2001, Democrats demanded a "kick-out clause" in organizing negotiations that would automatically scrap agreements on committee ratios and funding levels and force new organizational rules. But Republicans decided this month against a confrontation that would come from demanding a similar clause.

As the Post article notes, the 2001 resolutions were different, allowing for control changes. There is also precedent for this, as a similar situation happened in 1953.[5]Simon12 03:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The title of this subsection is not accurate. If Republicans had a majority, they would take control of floor issues, at the very least, and probably filibuster until an agreement for a switch in control of committees and the like was arranged. -Rrius (talk) 06:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Number of Democrats

The number of democrats is 51. Not 49. See the Nytimes/yahoo/google/any new source for proof.

  Technically, Bernie Sanders is an independent; Joe Lieberman is too but he   
  calls himself Democrat. This would make the number of Democats 49.

They are in the Democrat Caucus, therefore they are counted with the dems.

I disagree. Take Alaska for example: The Democrats are the minority but because of a power struggle in the state senate over who should be senate president they are in the majority caucus with several Republicans. I highly doubt that those republicans would call themselves democrats simply because they caucus with them. There are NOT 15 Democrats in the Alaska State Senate; but there are 15 people in the majority caucus. Despite the fact that Lieberman and Sanders are independent, and not republican, they are still none the less independent. "There are 51 people in the majority, 49 of which are democrats" would be an appropriate statement. Mercer5089 05:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with that statement. Remember, the majority and minority are official concepts in the Constitution; Democrats and Republicans are not. Who knows, in a few years we could have a real third party and then the majority would always be made up of people from different parties. user:mnw2000 15:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Mercer5089 yet your statement is POV and should not influence the article. It's not our purpose to take into considerations hypotheticals when editing an article. It does not matter that at some future point a third or fourth or even a fifth party may be elected to the U.S. Congress. If and when that happens we can edit the article composition to include that information but until that time we must bear in mind that there are 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans, and a 51 Majority. It was with this in mind that I took the liberty to edit the composition to accurately reflect this. Both Mercer and the unsigned editor are correct. You on the other hand are wrong for bringing an issue up that has no bearing on this article as it would make this discussion a political one instead of a editorial one. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 22:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Majority and minority are not official concepts in the constitution. They are a by-product of partisan politics, which as was rightly pointed out, are not included.-Rrius (talk) 16:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Political Color Coding?

On the article for the US Senate Republicans are represented by red and Democrats by Blue. At the last presidential election, the map states being changed as votes came in shown on News bulletins followed this convention on some networks, but on others GOP was blue and Democrats were Red. The latter were predominantly BBC, SKY i.e. British whereas FOX and I think CNN i.e. Ameirican followed the former convention. In Britain Blue and Red are synonymous with Conservative and Labour; or right and left so perhaps that is the reason this method was used instead. Whilst as a non American I am likely to assume that Red for GOP and Blue for Dems is correct IS IT? or were the NEWS channels just selecting one colour for each for the sake of illustration which could just as easily been stripes and polkadots? Dainamo 15:54, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, in U.S. red for Republicans and blue for Democrats has become traditional. Accordingly, the center of the country is often called the "red states". No idea why nor when this was first adopted. Do we have an article discussing that? -- Jmabel 17:03, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

There's Red state and Blue state, but I'm not sure they discuss the origin. Talk to an older political junkie than me. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:02, 2004 Jul 25 (UTC)

"Traditional" is the wrong word, they have become ingrained since 2000. To the extent partisans self-identified with colors before November 2000, they were the same as Europe: blue for Republican, red for Democrat. The first I ever heard anyone use red for Republicans and blue for Democrats was Tim Russert of NBC News when referring to the network's map, which, like everyone else that year, assigned the colors that way. Whether it was Russert's doing or someone else's, the colors used today result from the media coverage of the 2000 election's aftermath, not the choice of the parties. There is an article called Red states and blue states that addresses the issue. -Rrius (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Goes back to the 19th century I beleive Smith03 18:03, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that. My personal recollection is that the red state/blue state stuff started fairly recently. (I had originally said "the 1980s" but see below Dpbsmith 20:08, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)). In particular, the colors used are always a sort of pastel salmon red and deep sky blue, whereas traditional campaign color schemes of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s always used the brightest of primary colors... Also, during the 1950s and early 1960s I can't imagine that any political party would have allowed itself to be associated with any shade of red or pink. (That's no joke, I'm not kidding. Those were the days when schools stopped using the term "social studies" because even the word "social" seemed dangerous). Dpbsmith 19:58, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[[6]] well you better edit this page if you doubt what I said Smith03 02:04, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Google Groups search on "red state" "blue state" , sorted in chronological order, from 12 May 1981 through 25 July 2001—that is, all USENET posting containing both of the exact phrases "red state" and "blue state" shows 9 hits total. Two irrelevant hits in 1995 and 1999. First one in sense of "Republican" and "Democrat" is Nov. 23, 2000. Searching from 25 July 2001 through today, in contrast, yields 238 hits. Here's a link to the search: [7] Dpbsmith 20:08, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Dpbsmith. I have a recollection of seeing television coverage at least one pre-2000 election in which the states carried by the Democrat were red and the Republican wins were blue. Although I can't state the year with certainty, it sticks in mind because, as a Democrat, I remember feeling upset at an apparent bow to the Republicans' linking Jefferson's party to Communism. I think it would be more accurate to say that colors were used rather indiscriminately before 2000, but that the closeness and sharp polarization of the 2000 election resulted in extensive discussion of the state-by-state division, with the result that red for Republicans and blue for Democrats seems to have become entrenched in the popular usage. The TV networks have always used different colors as an easy and obvious way to show state-by-state wins, but I don't think I ever heard the terms "red states" and "blue states" used before 2000. By the way, in New York, candidate petitions are pink for the Republicans and pastel green for the Democrats, and have been since well before 2000. JamesMLane 19:04, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In general, I'd suggest avoid using colors that may needlessly confuse an international audience, but the cited use is a graph with a clear legend indicating its color codes without implying any meaning beyond the graph. It's fine by graph standards. While it may be a bit disconcerting on first glance to a UK audience, it's not ambiguous or misleading, unless someone looking for a fight in this heated political year wants to infer something about using red for Republicans. (Sure, many Communist parties and countries favor it, but so do we in the U.S. — as one of our three patriotic colors. Besides, as an independent, I'd have better grounds to complain about having my non-affliation coded in yellow. ☺) -- Jeff Q 23:30, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Jeff, as I asked the orginal question, let me clarify that there was no confusion from a clearly labeled table or map. I was just interested in the correct form according to tradition. If we are discussing a particular country, the best policy is to use their chosen designation. In the same fashion I would address a Lieutenant in the US Army "Lou-tenant" amd one in a Commonwealth country "Lef-tenant" thus adopting what is appropriate in the particular situation. Dainamo

• In the '70s and '80s, the predominant practice was to show the Republicans are blue and the Democrats as red -- following the European tradition that the party of the Left got the color of Revolution. My first memory of the Republicans assigned red is no earlier than the 2000 election, and I recall it seemed at that time counter-intuitive and contrary to tradition. It seemed wrong. But I assume that as "Liberal" went from a term of pride to a term of opprobrium in the '80s, the connotations of Red (especially in a country that, unlike Europe, doesn't generally make much distinction between "socialist" and "communist") were such it seemed to some news organizations to be unfair to always assign that color to the Democratic Party. Given the extreme polarization during and even more so since, the 2000 elections, the (counter-intuitive) terms "red state" and "blue state" are firmly entrenched in the Zeitgeist, yet another point of similarity at which the U.S. will differ from out English-speaking relatives. -- orthogonal 12:00, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps we could have a map showing the state with two Rs in red, two Ds in blue, one of each in white. -- M Carling 10:25, Nov 7 2004 (UTC)

demographics, problems, criticism

This article is missing a section on demographics and other problems. The words "criticism" and "problem" do not appear once. This is one of the oldest legislative bodies in the world, which almost automatically means that it is in greater need of reform than more recently founded ones. The link to Demographics of the United States Congress is not enough because the House's figures obscure the Senate's problems. There is only one African American in the Senate and only three have ever been directly elected, probably making it the least representative legislative assembly in any democracy in the world, seriously questioning its efficacy and legitimacy.--Espoo (talk) 11:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Your logic doesn’t seem to make much sense. There only being one African American doesn’t mean it isn’t representative. Members there are voted based on what the people want; not having a proportional amount of African-Americans is hardly relevant. Calling it "the least representative legislative assembly in any democracy in the world" is completely a farce, and probably just to push your anti-government agenda. A criticism of a specific session may be a good idea, but a one for the body as a whole is inappropriate. For example, the article on the United States does not have a criticism section, but the article on Foreign Policy does. As such, criticism of the actions of congress is justified, but not the body as a whole. Travis T. Cleveland (talk) 01:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"floor"

I wanted to wikify the term "floor", but could not go past Floor (disambiguation), where there is a bit of an explanation of the word in this context. Perhaps the term is loosely used in this article, some rewording needs be done? Thanks in advance, --Jerome Potts (talk) 22:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

When a bill is on the floor, it means that it is being debated by the full Senate... amendments are offered and revisions are done, etc... and a vote is taken. If the bill passes in a different version from what passed in the House it is sent to a conference committee. Basically, the floor is where the action is.

Expulsion

Reads:The Constitution permits the Senate to expel any member by a two-thirds majority vote. Fifteen senators have been expelled in the history of the Senate; fourteen of them in 1861 and 1862 for supporting the Confederate secession. No senator has been expelled since, although many senators have chosen to resign when faced with expulsion proceedings (for example, Bob Packwood in 1995). The Senate has also passed several resolutions censuring members; censure requires only a simple majority and does not remove a senator from office.

• Where's the fiteenth expelled Senator? Or should it read: 'fourteen of them in 1861 and one in 1862, all for supp....'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkruijff (talk • contribs) 08:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I take from the quoted language that one senator was expelled before 1861, 14 during the period 1861 to 1862, and none since. -Rrius (talk) 08:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

And so it is. One was expelled in 1797, 14 from 1861 to 1862, and zero since. -Rrius (talk) 08:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Mention of John Kerry

The page states in the Seniority section: "Currently, the most-senior "Junior Senator" is John Kerry of New Mexico at 15th in seniority." John Kerry is in fact the senator from Mass. Not New Mexico. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.155.162.220 (talk) 21:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Election of senators to fill vacancies

In the article it says that AZ is the only state in which the governor can't appoint a Senator in the case of a vacancy. I know that Mass changed their law in 2004 to prevent Mitt Romney from appointing a Republican if John Kerry won the presidency. Was this law repealed or did it sunset?

Presently, the article states that it is only the Alaska governor who does not have the power to appoint replacements. According to the CRS Report for Congress (updated Jan. 22, 2003) (http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/Vacancies.pdf), only Oregon and Wisconsin governors do not have the power to appoint replacements. The governor of Oklahoma has this power only under special circumstances, and the governors of Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Utah, and Wyoming have restrictions upon their power to appoint.

According to http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/54-140.htm, Massachusetts in 2004 has also removed the power of governors to appoint replacements.

There also appears to be a successful 2004 ballot initiative in Alaska that did the same. However, it is yet uncertain whether that ballot initiative is constitutional, as the 17th Amendment specifies that it is the state legislature which can authorize the governor appointment powers.

The article also shows two citations here, the second of which is a dead link. The other link is to the U.S. Senate Virtual Reference Desk - Elections page. Under "Appointments," this page states that only Arizona does not allow for temporary appointments, which appears to be completely false.

Would someone please correct this information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.78.64.253 (talk) 18:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

BE IT KNOWN THAT BOTH SENATORS AND HOUSE REPRESENTATIVES MUST HAVE PROFESSIONAL COLLEGE DEGREES, A GENERAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN HYPOTHESIS, THEORY AND LAW, AND EXTENSIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD WITH RESPECT TO THE PROCESS OF TURNING A HYPOTHESIS INTO LAW, since they make laws.

DUH! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamt64 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

What does this have to do with "Election of Senators to fill vacancies"? There is no requirement that any member of Congress have a college degree, professional or otherwise. The only requirement is 25 years of age for House members and 30 years for senators.DCmacnut<> 16:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Represenatation

Is there anyone else out there who thinks it's unfair that every state gets two Senators? Aren't some people getting disproportionate influence? Aren't "one man, one vote" and "equality under law" important principles of democracy?

Ahh, you speak of the great compromise made during the Constitutional Convention. More populous, Southern states wanted representation based on population; less populous, Northern states wanted equal representation, for obvious reasons. The compromise was that "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." (US Constitution I.2) The Fourteenth Amendment would of course remove the clause about slaves counting as 3/5s of a person when distributing representatives, and therefore electors in a presidential election. Laguna72 19:49, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Don't forget that the Senate was originally intended to represent the states — this is why the state legislatures originally chose their Senators. - jredmond 19:52, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Since the 17th Amendment, Senators have represented the inhabitants of states, not state governments. Since Senators currently represent people, it seems that one justification for an equal suffrage Senate has been lost. (Hamilton called states "artificial entities")

Since Senators are now elected just like Congressmen, it seems doubtful than anyone can claim that Senators are inherently wiser than Congressmen either. If Senators do consider wider interests than Congressmen, it would seem the reasons for that are that Senators represent larger and more diverse districts than Congressmen and have six year terms.User:Dinopup

The 17th Amendment did not diminish the justification for states' equal suffrage in the Senate. A "state" is an organized body of people within a definite territory, not merely its legislature; it is the sovereign rights of each state, not merely its legislature, that the principle of state equality is meant to protect and upon which equal Senate suffrage rests. How senators are chosen is irrelevant insofar as equal suffrage is concerned.

That is not to say that the 17th Amendment did not strike a dissonant constitutional chord. By replacing indirect election with direct representation for the sake of "progressive" populism, the Amendment worked a partial excision of the constitutional provisions designed to protect individual rights from popular rule. The way to restore harmony is not, I submit, to complete the excision, but to reverse it, as Georgia Senator Zell Miller has proposed by calling for the repeal of the 17th Amendment.Pgva 07:42, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"that the principle of state equality is meant to protect and upon which equal Senate suffrage rests. How senators are chosen is irrelevant insofar as equal suffrage is concerned."

To me, it's ridiculous to treat states with 600,000 people the same as states with 35 million. The notion that the states are equal is absurd. Why should a person get the equivalent of 17 more votes by moving across Lake Tahoe from California to Nevada? Or the equilalent of 19 more votes by moving from Pennsylvania to Delaware?

The Senate treats the citizens of some states as "more equal" than the citizens of others. That's unjust.

Which constitutional principle applies in making that judgment? Were I to apply the principle of "one man, one vote", I would agree. But that principle manifestly does not apply, as I explained here.

My conclusion is informed by the understanding that the "will of the majority" does not convey legitimacy on an otherwise unjust exercise of power. The houses of Congress do not grant such a license; they protect their constituencies from arbitrary government power. The House protects persons, the Senate protects states from government. Additional protections do not offend the principle, unless you believe that majority will in itself legitimizes unlimited government of all kinds. Those who prefer limited constitutional government require "one man, one vote" (in the House), but are happy to admit complimentary principles to further limit government and thereby protect freedom.Pgva 17:21, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

“The House protects persons, the Senate protects states from government.”

But states per se are almost never affected by the legislation that comes out of Congress. Nearly all legislation affects persons, corporations, unions, etc.

Of course the legislation usually does not regulate state governments, what it regulates are the states' traditional objects of legislation. When Congress usurps legislative powers that constitutionally belong to the states, states most certainly are affected, as the universe of legislation that is theirs alone to vary in accordance with the will of their people shrinks. The Senate gives the people, as states, a marginal advantage in saying "no" to such usurpations. So, for instance, if the House were to pass a law outlawing firearms within one hundred feet of a school, the Senate, recognizing that such a law is nowhere authorized by the constitution, would have a marginal incentive to reject it, assuming that the question was sufficiently close (as I conceded, tools to protect liberty work at the margins only). And thus: Massachusetts can have gun-free school zones if it wants, Texas is free not to, U.S. citizens can freely choose their state of residence, and voila, liberty and the proper balance of state-federal power are preserved another day.

There are a few cases when legislation does affect states – state grant formulas and appropriations. In those instances, small states have an enormous undue advantage. Numerous studies have shown that small states get more pork barrel appropriations than large states. Small states have insisted that block grant formulas favor them.

In other words, popular attempts at wealth redistribution. It is comforting to know that, even today, our Madisonian system resists such attempts, distorting the formulas and putting the brakes on the socialist enterprise. That a system conceived in liberty, not socialism, is an imperfect wealth redistributor should come as no surprise and ought to be celebrated by freedom-loving citizens everywhere. The solution, I suggest, is not to perfect the mechanisms of redistribution but to stop putting the system to a use for which it was not designed.

“I’m not at all sure why the Senate “always wins” since the constitution gives equal power to the House and Senate on spending matters (maybe the House needs more backbone?)”

What the Senate wins on is block grant budget formulas. With most block grants, every states is guaranteed a certain minimum, regardless of size or need. House members don’t have an incentive to fight Senators on unfair block grant formulas because House constituents care less about abstract budgeting methods than they do pork. Also, House members are always up for reelection, Senators every sixth year, so sometimes Senators win on funding disputes because they have the luxury of time. The incentives might seem subtle, but Oppenheimer and Lee demonstrate that when there is a dispute between the House and the Senate on a budget formula, the Senate almost always wins.

I can accept this explanation without concluding that there is anything wrong with the constitution, especially since the House and Senate have equal power over spending matters, meaning that any perceived inequities are merely realpolitik. That House constituents care less about "abstract budgeting methods" than "pork" is certainly their prerogative, and if their representatives concede political territory in conference committee, then that is their choice.

“My conclusion is informed by the understanding that the "will of the majority" does not convey legitimacy on an otherwise unjust exercise of power. The houses of Congress do not grant such a license; they protect their constituencies from arbitrary government power. The House protects persons, the Senate protects states from government. Additional protections do not offend the principle, unless you believe that majority will in itself legitimizes unlimited government of all kinds.”

Almost no one believes that something that the majority supports is automatically good, but with the Senate, not all minorities are equally protected. If you wanted a legislative body to protect all minorities equally, you would want a “one man, one vote” legislature, but require it to have a 60% majority to pass something.

As I indicated previously, the Senate is majoritarian in character (majority of states rather than persons). The Senate protects state majorities from federal usurpation, just as the House protects majorities of persons. Minority rights are protected (at the margins) by balancing the houses against one another and with the aid of the president's veto, the courts' powers of judicial review, federalism enabling citizens to choose their state of residence and vary local policies accordingly (rather than having national uniformity), and so forth. Minority rights are realized in these checks and balances. The difference with the 60% rule (not to besmirch the idea) is that the checks and balances have independent justifications that help preserve their place in the constitutional design, e.g. the Senate protecting states' rights, the president defending his executive prerogatives, the courts upholding the rule of law.

Here are a few minorities which the Senate hasn't historically protected. The tens of millions of Americans who live in cities, Americans who are non-white, Americans who work in manufacturing. Those are some pretty large groups.

Of course I meant protected from government, and to the extent that population-based apportionment is needed to negate legislation, the House does that.

Since the 1960's State Senates have been apportioned according to population. Has this resulted in a tyranny of the majority?

Certainly it has, to the extent that the two houses agree more often and pass more laws restricting freedom.Pgva 17:56, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Pgva, You seem to be saying that you favor the Senate because believe liberty is protected by legislative inaction. To me, that seems more like an argument for bicameralism than an equal suffrage Senate.

"other words, popular attempts at wealth redistribution. It is comforting to know that, even today, our Madisonian system resists such attempts, distorting the formulas and putting the brakes on the socialist enterprise."

BUT THE OPPOSITE IS TRUE! Powerful Senators have done hundreds of things to redistribute wealth and create all kinds of socialistic federal programs.

What do you call it when Ted Stevens (R-AK) and Robert Byrd (D-WV) use their perches on the Appropriations committee to take home billions of dollars in unneeded projects to their home states? What do you call it when Trent Lott has the navy buy ships it doesn't need because the ships would be made in his home state?! Isn't that a redistribution of income from the wealthier regions of the country to the poorer?

The TVA was more the product of powerful upper-South Senators than Franklin Roosevelt. Is the TVA not "socialist"?

What do you call farm subsidies? The Democrats pushed the farm subsidy expansion bill through the Senate in 2002 because they wanted to save Tim Johnson's South Dakota Senate seat (many farm state Republicans voted for the bill as well). The Republicans pushed the bill through the House because they wanted that Senate seat too, and weren't going to let overrepresented farmers like the Democrats more.

You contradict your own argument when you say "In other words, popular attempts at wealth redistribution

The biggest aspect of block grants that is redistributional is that every state gets a minimum, no matter its size. Thus, block grants favor small states. If you don't like wealth redistribution, you _shouldn't_ like an equal apportionment Senate. What small state Senators want is worse than big government, it's big government taht disproportionately benefits them.

Blocking legislation you don't like isn't a reason to favor an equal apportionment Senate. What would you think if rural people disproportionately favored big government? (er, which they do)

If you don't like big government, then you should be pretty mad at what the Senate did to George W. Bush's tax cuts. The Senate trimmed a couple hundred million off of both of them. Who were the two Republican hold out Senators on the 2001 tax cuts? Jeffords and Chafee, both representatives of pretty tiny states.

If the Senate were apportioned by population you would still see pork, but you wouldn't see certain states vastly privileged over others. Have you been to NYC? They have wanted to build an East Side subway for sixty years, but have never been able to get the money from Washington to do it, even though they send 10 bil more to DC than they get back. The only East Side subway NYC has now is incredibly crowded, a second East Side line would be used by millions of people, and wouldn't be considered "pork" by most people at all.

You have said many things about state equality, but there is nothing rational about how state lines have been drawn. If you were going to divide the USA into fifty sub-units, would you ever make the metropolitan area of Providence a sub-unit equal to half the West Coast?

"If the Senate were apportioned by population you would still see pork, but you wouldn't see certain states vastly privileged over others."

The real problem is not the Senate, it is that the socialist ("pork-barrel") mindset turns the very concept of liberty upside down. "Freedom" becomes freedom to steal from one's neighbors. It's laughable that we are debating whether the Senate enables "equitable" stealing, because of course there is no such thing. Were we to practice genuine liberty in this country, where each individual produces for himself, engages in private enterprise and does not rely on the government's monopoly on force (intended to protect, not abrogate, individual rights) to expropriate from others, the small states' Senate advantage would not be so onerous and immoral a burden as you describe. To coin a phrase, everything gets mixed up when you try to practice socialism. Now, we could try to rearrange individual pieces of our system, which would take us still further from our founding ideal; or, we could set to work to restore the liberty that is properly ours. Forget about the Senate's marginal impact; focus on changing the overwhelming consensus favoring big government, against which no free republic will long survive.Pgva 20:28, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"You have said many things about state equality, but there is nothing rational about how state lines have been drawn. If you were going to divide the USA into fifty sub-units, would you ever make the metropolitan area of Providence a sub-unit equal to half the West Coast?"

Why not? Many of the original states were created by religious minorities uphappy with the policies of their governments. They left and formed distinct societies (not "sub-units") in which they would be free to practice their religion and pursue their values as they saw fit. No one has ever suggested that to do so they required an equal number of persons. Rhode Island is one such example.

Today, people are still free to relocate to states more conducive to their happiness. That is why preserving states' rights matters. The more areas of policy that are dictated by the federal government nationwide, the less free all of us are (to escape from tyranny to other jurisdictions). This is crucially important to real liberty. Why did the New Deal have to be a national policy? Because socialism fails when people are free to escape it (actually, it fails anyway, but it fails faster when people are free to escape). Witness the exodus from California. Witness Germany's Berlin Wall, that was designed to keep people in.

Even so, one could argue that the state divisions of yesteryear are obsolete. The constitution has a ready answer. States lines may be redrawn with the consent of the affected legislatures and Congress.Pgva 20:57, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"What small state Senators want is worse than big government, it's big government that disproportionately benefits them."

I at first struggled to understand this disproportionality-of-benefits objection. After all, what are "proportional benefits", anyway? Nowhere does the constitution say that "appropriations shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers". If this had been a preeminent value to the founders, surely they would have said so.

When I considered the objection from the modern welfare state point of view, however, the objection did make some sense. For if the issue is pork-barrel handouts, then disproportionate distribution is cause for complaint, but disproportionate to what? Why not require proportionality of benefits to individual income taxes paid, rather than the equal per capita distribution that the demand for a population-apportioned Senate implies? Could it be that the proportional benefits objection, far from being an objection to socialism, is a cover for a redistributionist social justice idea that taxes the rich exclusively while demanding equal benefits for rich and poor alike, that that is the root cause of complaint against equal Senate suffrage?

Of course this cannot be right. "Proportionality" is simply not a reasonable standard for necessary federal spending. Only in an illegitimate federal welfare state could this consideration be deemed proper. The solution, once again, is not to perfect the welfare state, but to eliminate it.Pgva 03:50, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Even if maldistributed appropriations aren't literally unconstitutional, that doesn't mean that maldistributed benefits aren't unfair, or even contrary to the unwritten intent of the Constitution. All the major Founding Fathers actually opposed an equal suffrage Senate anyway. As you alluded to, the Framers of the Constitution never imagined that a welfare state would emerge. Certainly the Framers wouldn't have wanted a state support itself by skimming off other states.

Personally, I'm less bothered by the "welfare state," (Soc Security Medicare are ok IMO), than I am by the "subsidy state." Since Senators are disproportionately from rural areas, and rural areas are the biggest subsidy grabbers of all, the Senate does constribute to the subsidy mess that we see in Washington.

Since your opposition to big government drove your support of an equal suffrage Senate, I tried to show that the Senate actually encourages _more_ big government, not less. I agree with you that it would be nice if states paid for more of their own stuff, especially infrastructure. But try convincing a Hawaii, Wyoming, or South Dakota congressman to believe that.

(in Sizing Up the Senate, Oppenheimer and Lee demonstrate in many ways that small state Senators pull down more pork, subsides, quotas than what is their fair share).

I didn't care about the equal Suffrage Senate until two years ago. I find it indefensible that counter terrorism money is distributed through a system that leaves the most endangered places (NYC, Chicago, LA) with less money than places that face no risk at all (Wyoming). We probably wouldn't have that unfair formula if it weren't for the disproportionate power of small state pols.

You can take comfort from the fact that the equal suffrage Senate can never be changed. Article V in the Constitution makes an amendment to change the Senate basically unconstitutional. Perhaps in a few decades we will see fission movements in the larger states. There are people in northern California who want a separate state; Norman Mailer ran for mayor of NYC on a platform of making New York "the fifty-first state." (alas, Albany would never allow their cash cow to go free)

I agree that leaving major cities underprotected from terrorism is indefensible. Without examining the specific appropriations, I will assume that you are correct in focusing on the state distribution of counterterrorism monies and that cities are indeed underprotected, and that our small state senators are chiefly responsible for this underprotection. Since counterterrorism is obviously a legitimate federal enterprise, I will concede that the issue (properly understood) is not one of illegitimate big government but legitimate national defense, and that it is sometimes proper for the federal government to enlist the help of the states and localities through federal grants for that purpose.

The proportionality, therefore, is proportionality on the basis of genuine need as determined by the relative threat of terrorism to given areas. It is not simply a per capita proportionality, which might itself work a malappropriation in the context of terrorism (indeed, the cities you mention probably deserve much more than per capita dollars). However, since per capita would be a lesser malappropriation than the one resulting from treating all states as equally threatened, you have identified Senate apportionment as the culprit. I will argue that this is not correct, and that the real problem is the widespread "handout" mentality at the voting booth.

Our founders apparently presumed that in matters of common national interest such as war, our senators would, in their select wisdom, rise above their parochial interests to consider the nation as a whole; that in so doing, they would consider the complex factors that determine genuine threat and appropriate monies accordingly; that they would, opposite a popularly-elected House that (perhaps) did misappropriate monies for the sake of per capita pork, make necessary revisions to best protect the nation. What is missing in today's scenario is not per capita Senate apportionment, but an ability to rise above parochial interests and do what is right for the country as a whole. The 17th Amendment may be partly to blame, but indirect election was only a marginal buffer of popular will. Far more important is the handout mentality that so totally pervades our culture as to render our national Senate an embarrassment.

Remember when Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura appointed Dean Barkley to fill the Senate seat vacated by the late Senator Paul Wellstone? His one instruction to Barkley was to bring back as many federal dollars as possible. I was shocked, because we rarely see our culture's shameful proclivity for grabbing handouts stated so openly and positively. Yet what Ventura said then is also stated silently by most of us when we enter the voting booth. That is where the problem lies, for if our primary concern is "what can I get from the government", then we have truly ceased to be "one nation", and the best that the citizens of our cities can do is to fend for themselves. I view all federal welfare and subsidy programs as being the product of the same psychological impulse, and thus all problematic.

The solution lies with you and I and the citizens of this country. When the time comes that we cease voting for candidates who will bring back the most pork, our federal councils will have a chance to function rationally. We should demand that our Senators appropriate money, not proportionately per capita, but rationally per the actual threat.

It may take time for our culture to adjust. In an age of terrorism, pork-as-usual must give way to the genuinely common good. Yet when such a widespread consensus does occur, our politicians will have no choice but to respond to the popular will. It is far better that we direct our attention to where the problem actually lies, rather than attacking the straw man of Senate apportionment.Pgva 18:56, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Pgva,

I'm not sure if we'll ever get past subsidy and pork grubbing with the system we currently have. I personally vote for the candidate with whom I agree on the national issues, but even if I wanted to vote against pork, for whom would I vote? Pork politics is absolutely bipartisan. My two Senators (Corzine & Lautenberg) really aren't known for pork or subsidy grabbing either (even if they do favor the welfare state). What can I do to weaken Byrd or Stevens?

Also, let's say that I could vote for a candidate who was against subsidies and who was against pork, why good would it do for my district/state to unilaterally stop seeking pork while other districts/states stay at the trough?

It would be nice if the president took a stand against pork, but no president is realistically going to do that, since pork helps a president pass legislation. Clinton got NAFTA through the House by making all kinds of special infrastructure promises.

Maybe a line item veto would be a good idea? (but even if we had a line item veto, a pres isn’t going to use it to fight the projects of powerful legislators)

I never knew that about Ventura and Dean Barkley. I had thought those two were good people.

You write of the problems of politicians only caring about their own constituents, and not the entire country. Another problem is that so many politicians only care about the present, and not the future. I'm sure you're aware that we're sticking future generations with trillions and trillions in debt. Americans disdain Canada and Western Europe for big government, but at least those governments are fiscally solvent!

I don't think you'll agree with me on this, but I wish we had a system of voting which would allow more than two parties to emerge. The reason we don’t have viable alternative parties isn’t lack of ballot access, lack of media coverage, or even lack of money, it’s our geographic based first past the post voting system.

If we had a proportional representation voting system that represented ideas, rather than geography, you would see less pork. Let’s say that legislators were elected from party lists (like most countries in Europe), and not from single member districts. Congressmen would no longer have an incentive for pork barrel politics at all, and could vote for the national interest, rather than what they perceive as their district’s interest.

I would not want to do away with all geographic representation, the additional member systems used by Germany and New Zealand seem close to ideal to me.

A question . . . why is it that so many Americans revere the Constitution and the Founding Fathers, but hate current politicians and how Washington works? If you look at polls, Americans rate Congressmen on the same level as used car salesmen. America has by far the lowest voter turnout in the democratic world.

"It may take time for our culture to adjust. In an age of terrorism, pork-as-usual must give way to the genuinely common good."

Let's hope so. Tom DeLay just called for a more intelligent distribution of counterterrorism money. Unfortunately, the Senate just voted down an amendment to do just that!

If a sufficient number of people were against pork and in favor of waging a national campaign to counter terrorism, then the parties and candidates would race to gain their votes. We would have parties in lockstep against pork rather than for it, and favoring a rational distribution of counterterrorism funds. This requires a seismic shift in popular opinion, as the attitudes towards entitlement must change before our political system will follow. The task is to educate people from California to Maine (and Alaska and West Virginia) to adopt a philosophy that rejects the expectation of handouts and demands a rational national defense of our cities.

Neither Senate apportionment nor electoral districts in general are the real problem. We would be far better off focusing on the problem of narrow interest voting and the handout mindset - rather than any of these straw men. So long as a majority of individual voters continue to "vote their porketbook", that sentiment will find its realization in misappropriated funds no matter which system channels it. If the pork is not doled out by district, then it will be doled out by some other political subdivision of voters, as pols will always pander to groups to get elected as long as people respond favorably to pandering. It makes no sense to misdirect the criticism from where it belongs - the mass opinion of the people - to the system that faithfully channels their will. Focus on persuading people to insist that their pols forswear pork and behave rationally. Attacking "the system" is both too easy and too ineffectual. Persuading people to be good citizens may be hard, but is the only certain way to effect genuine change.

As to the founders: In my opinion, they are so revered because our modern political philosophy of simple democracy and social entitlement suffers so badly in comparison to their Enlightenment-era ideals of freedom. They conceived and implemented what we today could not and would not. Yet we continue to benefit from their gift to us, and that quite simply engenders gratitude.Pgva 18:35, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Pgva,

I think the big majority of voters do vote for the candidate whom they think is better for the nation. Unfortunately, a minority of voters without ideological bents, will vote for the candidate they think will bring home more subsidies and pork for the state. Another name for this kind of "porketbook" voter is a "swing voter."

You aren't going to see the end of pork until you see the end of geographic representation.

---

When I said that people must cease voting for candidates who will bring back the most pork, I meant that the way to prevent candidates from serving pork to gain swing votes is to ensure that they would lose even more votes in the process. A "swing vote" minority holds no power other than that which the great mass of people grants to it by its complicity. Pandering with unnecessary spending must be greeted, not with shrugs of inevitability, but with such stigma and disapproval that no politician would dare do it. It must be as shocking and disqualifying an act as uttering a racial epitaph.

Geographic districting fosters a government whose members possess state and local attachments. This creates a necessary bond between the ordinary citizen and the highest councils of government: witness that while people hold Congress in low esteem generally, they tend to support their own representative. The direct accountability between representative and local constituents empowers the individual citizen and legitimizes the government in a way that proportional representation simply cannot. To insist that national interests can be served only by cutting the Congress loose from its local moorings is simply wrong.

In peacetime, Congress ought by design to be reduced to quarreling local factions, to better preserve our liberty. Yet in time of war, we presuppose that our elected representatives will find, in "the angels of their better nature", the capacity to put the national interest first - just as all citizens must - or face being turned out of office. The solution is not to create a mixed body through an additional member system, but to resolve the matter where it first belongs - in the hearts and minds of the citizenry.

Our present situation illustrates this principle dramatically. The misallocation of federal money that you cite is, in time of war, indefensible. But many citizens remain skeptical that we are in an outright state of war. In their view, a terrorist threat means more a mixed state of war and peace; wrong as that conclusion is, it probably best explains the ongoing tolerance for pork-barrel spending. People are holding on to the idea that "business as usual" can go on, that September 11 was (for them) an insufficient stimulus towards national unity. I do not agree with them, but neither am I yet willing to find in our present circumstances an excuse to fundamentally reorder a federal system that has served us well for over two centuries. In a democratic republic we cannot blame the system for the failure of the people's judgment. The task remains to educate, persuade and lead. Pgva 20:40, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nor is persuading voters in particular states the only way to correct Senate misdeeds. Senators are sufficiently few in number and well enough known to the entire country as to expose them as individuals to widespread criticism for bad behavior. Even Robert Byrd could not withstand the voices of 280 million Americans united to fight a rational war on terrorism. What could possibly be worse than diverting counterterrorism money from the places that need it most? A cacophony of outrage should rise from every quarter. Senators Stevens and Byrd should be forced to see the light or be drummed out of the Senate in shame. This too would be the inevitable result of a united popular opinion. Where that is lacking, the task is to create it. Pgva 04:43, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Nor is persuading voters in particular states the only way to correct Senate misdeeds. Senators are sufficiently few in number and well enough known to the entire country as to expose them as individuals to widespread criticism for bad behavior."

The above is absolutely not evidenced by history. America has had dozens of examples of Senators criticized (or hated) by the entire nation, but secure in their own states.

Before the 1960's the nation had a large majority in favor of anti-lynching laws and voting rights acts for blacks, but Southern Senators were consistently able to block that legislation until the mid-1960's. The rest of the country didn't like that, but what could anyone do? The reason you always have courts making laws in the USA is because our legislative process is so damn slow.

Another example of foolish Senators not facing any retribution from the rest of the nation. . . . from Late 1940 to Dec 1941, when World War II was raging in Europe, a majority of Americans wanted to assist Britain somehow, but a small group of interior state Senators led by Hiram Borah of Idaho and _____ Nye blocked doing anything for months and months. What could the rest of the country do? (see Master of the Senate for a history of this shameful and idiotic episode)

It is ironic that you mentioned the Iraq War . Let's agree to disagree about the rationality of the War, but did you know that the Senate only debated Iraq (in the mid of Oct) for _five_ days? Wasn't the Senate supposed to be some great deliberative body? but look how much deliberation they conducted on such an awesomely important decision?

"The direct accountability between representative and local constituents empowers the individual citizen and legitimizes the government in a way that proportional representation simply cannot"

Take heart PGVA, my ideas about proportional representation on the federal level are hopeless.

"When I said that people must cease voting for candidates who will bring back the most pork, I meant that the way to prevent candidates from serving pork to gain swing votes is to ensure that they would lose even more votes in the process."

Unfortunately, I think your hopes for a sea change in our political culture on pork are hopeless as well. I have never heard of a legislator losing reelection because he did _too_ much for his district. Right now the trend is the opposite of what you want, congressional earmarks are way up since 2001.

I know that I won't be able to persuade you to support proportional representation (or an additional member system, which I think is ideal), but you should concede that PR has some virtues and our district system certainly has its problems (other than pork). PR gives people more viable choices, PR allows more ideas to be expressed, PR ends the phenomenon of the "swing district," PR causes campaigns to be waged on issues and not personality, PR results in a legislature that more accurately reflects the opinions of the electorate, PR results in more women and minorities being elected, PR leads to higher turnout.

Of course there are countless examples when the Senate behaved indefensibly and individuals senators acted foolishly. My central contention is that, in every case, a lack of sufficient popular agreement in the country was the enabler. To simplify my point, I will offer only two degrees of popular opinion: sufficiently divided and sufficiently united. Senators can block legislation, misappropriate money and generally behave abominably when popular opinion is sufficiently divided as to let them get away with it, especially in numbers. On the other hand, when popular opinion is sufficiently united, any senator attempting to defy it would be branded as a pariah and be outvoted.

This is the nub of the matter: In the cases you cite, senators were able to behave indefensibly because popular opinion was sufficiently divided on those questions. Every evil attributed to Senate apportionment wears the tag: "because the people were not sufficiently united to demand otherwise".

The framers began with a loose confederation of states and in their generation managed to achieve 50% unity, with the other 50% being provided by each succeeding generation proving the states' unity in the crucible of the Senate. That is the federal design.

The task is to work as private citizens to move popular opinion in our direction until it is sufficiently united to achieve our aims which in the Senate means winning a majority of states. If our arguments are sound and our effort sustained, we will ultimately prevail. I like the example of counterterrorism misappropriations because it strikes me as a clearly sound argument that would, if competently presented, resonate with people in sufficient numbers to prevail.

I prefer to be optimistic about the possibility of moving popular opinion. Consider the conservative movement of the 1980s. Ronald Reagan was so successful in moving popular opinion in his direction that for decades afterward the Left was substantially in tatters with no chance of enacting its agenda. This reversed a trend towards socialism that for decades was thought to be irreversible. Yet under Reagan, popular opinion was sufficiently united to enact his conservative agenda.

Civil rights legislation was delayed because a sufficient portion of the country was still against it, but that eventually changed. Pork is doled out because anti-pork people like me are still too few in number, but that could change. We need not remain a nation of shameless parasites forever, and the question is, what do we intend to do about it?

The same applies to every public policy question under the sun. There is no matter of law so far removed from popular influence that no amount of national unity could change it. If our position is truly just, by what reason would we give up hope of ultimately prevailing? Pgva 04:21, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

The best argument against equal Senate suffrage might go something like this: "Pgva, you are correct that our constitution attempts to counterbalance 'equality of persons' and 'equality of states' as co-equal principles in the federal design with the effect of protecting states' equal rights against federal encroachment and constraining legislation generally. Yet while liberty does indeed demand that the constitution embody principled mechanisms to protect liberty, all such principles must be consonant with the equal weight of all citizens' votes whenever the people are invested with the franchise from which national powers must derive. In weighing citizens' votes, any addition of one mathematical principle necessarily subtracts from another; adding to 'one man, one vote' destroys the principle utterly.

"At least insofar as the powers delegated to the government operate upon persons, not states, the exercise of those powers requires that the equality of citizens' votes be absolutely protected throughout. Purely national powers cannot derive from a federal or compound source but only from a source itself purely national in character. Yet the apportionment of the House, Senate and Electoral College all violate this rule to various extents. We can forgive the minor inequities of the House as a practical consideration and know that the Electoral College will be as perfectly apportioned as the Congress itself. The great problem lies in the Senate which violates the maxim of equality not for practical reasons but to admit an inadmissible principle. Such injustice cannot be tolerated by a free people. Whatever the political realities of 1787 may have dictated at that time, they have no bearing whatever today. We ought to demand, with sufficient unity to prevail, that this injustice in our constitution be corrected forthwith."

Alas, I cannot conceive of a satisfactory rejoinder; I therefore concede the point regarding Senate apportionment and thank you for a very lively debate. Pgva 15:40, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This section should probably be moved to another page. What relevance does this debate have to the ditting of the article? Not to mention it is quite large. 70.161.91.189 23:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

From the article: "Regardless of population, each U.S state is represented by two senators and is therefore based on the equal representation of each state." What is that sentence supposed to mean? What is the subject of the verb phrase "is therefore based"? Each state? The sentence is defective and needs to be rewritten. 139.68.134.1 (talk) 21:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Voting % needed to pass laws

Could someone please add to the article how many votes it takes to get certain things passed? For example don't some things require a 2/3 majority of Senators, while maybe some other things only require a simple majority? Please answer this and add it to the article

Yes someone please add this. I came to Wiki to try to find that information and was surprised when it wasn't on here. This article isn't very informational when it is missing vital content like this. I would add it if I knew it, but I've looked everywhere and can't find it. Also add the amount of votes it takes to defeat something. 68.104.29.239 (talk) 23:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• It takes a majority to enact legislation. Some procedural tasks take more or less than a majority. For example, it takes 60 votes to invoke cloture which stops/prevents a filibuster. A few administrative tasks require unanimity.—Markles 11:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Lieberman's party affiliation

There's been some back and forth editing related to whether Joseph Lieberman should be listed as a Democrat or an independent. [8] [9] The discussion on the Lieberman talk page tends to support the position that he is still a Democrat. That's my position as well: Lieberman is currently serving the term to which he was elected in 2000 (in which he ran as a Democrat), he's a registered Democrat, and he claims Democrat as his party affiliation. But in the hopes of avoiding constant edit reverting, can we reach some consensus as to how to tally up the future composition of the Senate? Perhaps, instead of discussing it here, we should keep the debate at the Lieberman article's talk page for the sake of inter-article consistency? - Walkiped 06:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

As evidenced by his support of John McCain and President George W Bush's foreign policy, Liberman should be a independent with out the democrat affiliation. Rockyobody (talk) 02:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of the Senate

Shouldn't there be a session pointing out the fundamentally undemocratic nature of the US Senate ? In particular, the article should raise the important question that the composition of the Senate violates the principle of one person, one vote, which is in turn a basic tenet of representative democracy. 200.177.192.253 (talk) 13:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Apparently not. If such a thing were possible I'd put Unicameralism in the See Also §. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 17:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Schedule

How does find out when the U.S. Senate and its committees are next going to reconvene? I notice that http://senate.gov/reference/Sessions/sessionDates.htm and http://www.congressmerge.com/onlinedb/schedule.htm provide information on prior sessions but not on future ones. Thanks, Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 00:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• Try http://www.senate.gov/. On the right column, see Daily Digest, Senate Calendar, and Executive Calendar.—Markles 02:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Claim that popular election of senators occurred before the Constitution had been amended to allow it

User Rrius has just reverted my deletion of the claim that some states instituted "direct" or "popular" election of US senators prior to the 17th amendement in 1913. But Article One, Section Three of the US Constitution provides that "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote." Chosen by the Legislature thereof. It would have been hugely unconstitutional for a state to switch from having its legislature elect the US senators to having the citizenry elect them. You gotta wonder why Rrius sees no need to back up such a sensational claim. If you're going to insist that something of this huge legal magnitude really did happen, it's unacceptable to mention it just casually. Prove it -- and have the text acknowledge the shockingness of it. To an intelligent person, it's obvious the states lack the authority to determine how members of congress are elected. Hurmata (talk) 00:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Please tone down the harsh rhetoric, Hurmata. Rrius was right to an extent. Before the 17th Amendent, a few states did elect their Senators by popular vote. I think maybe Oregon or Nebraska or Oklahoma, I'm not sure which. I suppose what happened was that the legislatures in those states must have formally ratified the popular vote; or perhaps through legislation mandated that the popularly-elected candidate was thereby considered elected. Sure, Rrius should have backed up his/her claim with substantive citations.—Markles 00:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Markles. Wow, that is really something, how clever those states were. That workaround did not occur to me. However, it's also interesting that this historical reality you're reporting is also consistent how I most recently worded the article. Furthermore, I do not regret my ire, not only for the reason I gave previously, but because of the careless editing done by several editors, as a result of which the article contradicted itself on this point; the discussion was strewn over several paragraphs; and the sentence that included "some states" could have been misconstrued to imply that popular election was more frequent before 1913 than it truly was. Hurmata (talk) 01:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It was a quite a few states by the time the amendment was adopted, and I've added a source. For you to justify your "ire", which was directed only at me, with the "careless editing done by several editors" is outrageous. You can be annoyed that I restored an unsourced claim, but I did nothing to draw the level of reaction shown above. -Rrius (talk) 02:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

@Markles: Sure, but it wasn't really my claim. It was basically valid info that should be in the article. I did not have time then to explain and search for a ref, but I wanted to correct it while I was removing the unnecessary quotation marks. -Rrius (talk) 02:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• Can we all kiss and make up now?—Markles 02:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)