Jump to content

Talk:117th United States Congress: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎RfC: should Mariannette Miller-Meeks be listed as the winner of Iowa's 2nd?: malformed RfC, see WP:RFCST - no statement and no timestamp, and by going straight to a survey it's not neutral either. I could have terminated it outright, but instead I've fixed it up because I can't be bothered explaining and asking for a revision
Line 217: Line 217:


{{rfc|pol|rfcid=FEB8E90}}
{{rfc|pol|rfcid=FEB8E90}}
Should Mariannette Miller-Meeks be listed as the winner of Iowa's 2nd? [[User:Sdrqaz|Sdrqaz]] ([[User talk:Sdrqaz|talk]]) 20:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


===Survey===
===Survey===

Revision as of 09:10, 4 December 2020

Who votes for Georgia's Enate seat if the likely Special Election Run-off is not yet determined? Could it change the majority until the Special Run=off result is certified?

I can't figure out who is the Senator for Georgia between Jan New Congress and certification of presumed Run-off Election after the 117th is convened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rev Doug Edwards (talk • contribs) 20:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The one who's there now. Arglebargle79 (talk) 18:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Senate seat will be vacant from January 3 until the run-off election is held. GoodDay (talk) 02:00, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kelly Loeffler is an appointed Senator and it's a mid-term special election. She stays in office until the runoff is over. The same thing happens with Martha McSally. House members' terms end on the last half-day of the old congress, but Senators, unless their regular terms do, do not. Chuck Schumer, for example, doesn't have to be sworn in, as he has a six-year term. So unless she resigns, Loeffler gets to stay in her job until the voting is certified, and thus she gets a week or so in the new Congress. I'm not sure if there's a runoff if Perdue doesn't get 50%+1. If there is one for that seat, the Governor will probably appoint him for the time in between in order that he doesn't lose seniority, but I really don't know.Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jan 3 or Jan 4 2021?

The article currently lists Jan 3 as when Congress meets but Jan 4 as when it convenes at noon. Is there a technical difference? I've only ever heard Jan 3 2021 mentioned, although it is a Sunday and previous Congresses have not convened at weekends. David Brooks (talk) 18:07, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DavidBrooks: Under the 20th Amendment, the 117th Congress begins on the 3rd of January. That's the date that matters.
Sdrqaz (talk) 23:02, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sdrqaz: Unless the preceding Congress changes it by law - e.g. 114th started 6 Jan 2015 (Jan 3 was a Saturday) and the 112th on 5 Jan 2011. As next 3 Jan is a Sunday, I wondered if the 116th changed the date of the 117th, but it seems not. This article seems to have been fixed since 31 Oct. Thanks for responding though. David Brooks (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DavidBrooks: I'm now slightly confused as to what we're discussing. While it is the case under Section 2 that the assembly date can be delayed, the date the actual Congress begins cannot be changed unless by another constitutional amendment (Section 1). In the lead paragraph of the 114th Congress, it states that it "met in Washington, D.C. from January 3, 2015" and has the session date of January 6. Therefore, it follows for this page that the lead paragraph should remain January 3 unless a surprise constitutional amendment occurs (!) and the session date should be January 3 unless the 116th Congress determines otherwise.
Sdrqaz (talk) 16:46, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sdrqaz: I'm sure I'm the confused one. The Senate informational page uses the term "convene...date" which is what you call assembly date. Thanks for explaining the subtle difference. David Brooks (talk) 18:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DavidBrooks: It was a pleasure. Sections 1 and 2 of the Amendment are hardly the most exciting or analysed parts of the Constitution and I'm not sure I quite understand it as much as I would like. I would say that Section 1 is the one that matters for this discussion.
Sdrqaz (talk) 17:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Senate majority at the beginning.

Just a note. Senate could be split 49/49 at Noon EST on 3 January 2021, thus the Republicans would keep the majority & become 50/50 on the 5 January 2021, thus the Republicans keeping the majority until Noon Est on 20 January 2021. GoodDay (talk) 03:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: I'm afraid I disagree. When the 117th Congress convenes, there will only be one seat that is vacant: David Perdue's seat. As Kelly Loeffler was appointed to her seat, she does not vacate it when the 116th Congress ends. Rather, she will vacate it following the runoff election (if she loses).
Sdrqaz (talk) 03:43, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because the term she was appointed to, to serve out, doesn't expire until January 3, 2023. What's the Senate's status from January 3 to 5, 2021? GoodDay (talk) 03:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GoodDay: Yes, exactly. Pending the results in North Carolina and Alaska (which are seen to be probably going to the GOP), the Senate will probably have a 51-48 split. I agree that the GOP can keep its majority following the Georgia runoffs, but it's highly unlikely that there will be an even split prior to them unless someone is appointed to Perdue's vacancy for those two days.
Sdrqaz (talk) 04:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you mean 50-48 split? GoodDay (talk) 04:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, I do not. As I said above, Kelly Loeffler retains her seat after January 3 because she was appointed to her seat. Given that the elections for North Carolina and Alaska will be called before then, there will only be one vacancy: David Perdue's seat.
Sdrqaz (talk) 14:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. GoodDay (talk) 12:39, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Grassley as President Pro Tempore?

With the current election results in from the 2020 Senate elections, the results so far are 51-48 in favor of the Republicans (52-48 assuming Georgia Governor Brian Kemp appoints David Perdue when the new Senate starts), at least at the beginning pending the runoffs in Georgia. By what I can tell, this means that at the very least, at the beginning Chuck Grassley, as the most senior Republican senator, will still continue to be President Pro Tempore of the Senate until Georgia is certified at the very least. Should the President Pro Tempore spot be changed to mark his name then? JadeEditor (talk) 19:15, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JadeEditor: There was a similar debate in the talk page of the 115th Congress, when Sen. Orrin Hatch was to remain President pro tempore after first assuming the office in the 114th Congress. As the Congressional Research Service has held that [t]he President pro tempore holds his office during his Senate term and is not reelected at the beginning of a new Congress,[1] I am inclined to follow its advice and agree with you.
Sdrqaz (talk) 22:30, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and he has been put now. --Foghe (talk) 23:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sdrqaz: After reading through the US Senate website, the procedure is that the President pro tempore holds office until a successor is elected. So I will proceed to change the President pro tempore from "TBD" to "Chuck Grassley until at least January 22, 2021" as Georgia elections certify in 17 days from the 5th, which is the 22nd. JadeEditor (talk) 02:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No need for "until at least…." If there's a change, you update it then. —GoldRingChip 19:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Without it, would give the impression that Grassley is prez pro-temp for the entire 117th congress. GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He is, unless there's a change and that's always the case. To compare, for example: Elizabeth Warren will be the class 1 senator from Massachusetts, but we don't need to say "until at least she resigns if appointed to… blah blah." MAYBE if there was a finite term ending (which, discussed above, there isn't) it might be different. —GoldRingChip 19:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Schneider, Judy (December 19, 2018). The First Day of a New Congress: A Guide to Proceedings on the Senate Floor (PDF) (Report). Congressional Research Service. p. 4. Retrieved November 12, 2020. The President pro tempore holds his office during his Senate term and is not reelected at the beginning of a new Congress.

Font

@Foghe: After all the trouble I went through to put in larger fonts & spacing, to compromise with another editor. Does this mean I gotta undo all the change I did on the other # US Congress articles? GoodDay (talk) 23:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: If you are okay with that, I can do that! --Foghe (talk) 23:25, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Better check with @Muboshgu:, who's against small fonts. GoodDay (talk) 23:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok! --Foghe (talk) 23:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW - I prefer the small font, which you've restored :) GoodDay (talk) 23:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Foghe, I'm not "against" small font as much as it's against policy to use small font in the infobox because the infobox font is already less than 100% by default. MOS:SMALLFONT explains this better than I could. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Foghe: If you want to implement the changes across the other # US Congress articles? By all means go for it. Muboshgu's silence speaks of consensus for your. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: Ok good, agreed. Bye! --Foghe (talk) 17:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldRingChip:, please read this discussion, before going around the font, again. @Foghe:, need your observation here, as well. GoodDay (talk) 03:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Thanks for pinging me on this. I have no opinion on this, but I will read on and obey. —GoldRingChip 14:44, 19 November 2020 (UTC))[reply]
GoodDay, MOS:SMALLFONT is not negotiable. Font sizes in the infobox are already by default below 100% of the normal font size. Going below 85% of the normal font size makes pages inaccessible to some of our readers. We do not use small font templates or html markup in infoboxes. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Time for an RFC, it appears. Why? Because this is getting bleeping frustration. GoodDay (talk) 03:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GoodDay, no, it's time for you to read the Manual of Style, which was developed through RfCs. You are making an aesthetic choice that makes Wikipedia less readable to some. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to open up an RFC on the matter. These articles were using small font for years. You didn't complain much then. GoodDay (talk) 03:43, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

request edit 117th United States Congress

In the Article titled “117th United States Congress” Wikipedia claims that “It is scheduled to meet in Washington, D.C. … during the final weeks of Donald Trump's term as President of the United States and through the first two years of Joseph Biden's.” This claim is wrong, biased, and premature, because Joseph Biden would not be elected president by the Electoral College until mid-December, and as of this date, November 17, no Electors have been certified by any state for Biden. [1]

Unfortunately, I cannot access the CRS report that you have cited. However, the statement that the 117th Congress will meet during the first two years of the Biden administration is not "wrong, biased, and premature". Wikipedians carry out their duties to the best of their ability, putting aside any personal views on the subject. Although the Electoral College has not met in their respective states (December 14 this year), it has been well-accepted by all reputable news organisations that Joe Biden is the president-elect. As of November 17, the states of Delaware, Wyoming, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, and North Dakota have certified their 2020 elections results.
Sdrqaz (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF1164

Sean Patrick Maloney

Sgarvey, I don't think Maloney's NY-18 election has been called yet. Can you provide some evidence that it has been called?

Sdrqaz (talk) 03:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sgarvey, the AP has just called Maloney's election (11:07am EST). Please do not add representatives until elections have been called.
Sdrqaz (talk) 17:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Fontsize in the infobox

Concerning the serving dates of the Congressional officers (VP, PPT, Speaker) & dates for parties (if required). What font size should be used? Seems a disagreement on this matter pops up, almost after every congressional election. GoodDay (talk) 04:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Shall we use in the infobox:

  • Mike Pence
    (until January 20, 2021)
  • Kamala Harris
    (since January 20, 2021)
    or
  • Mike Pence
    (until January 20, 2021)
  • Kamala Harris
    (since January 20, 2021)

Survey

Discussion

It's unreadable not having them small. GoodDay (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GoodDay, no it's not! In fact, for people with disabilities, it is literally unreadable if it's small! And I don't appreciate finding that you complained to me about me removing the small from this article making them all "consistent", when what you did was undo me making it uniformly correct back on November 10! You're making a mess out of all of this out of what "you", a person without disabilities (I assume), thinks of MOS:ACCESS. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you apparently know everything. You're even making changes to multiple articles related to this RFC, while it's in progress. GoodDay (talk) 18:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know this issue, and you clearly don't. I've asked you to read up on it and you appear to have not done so. I'm citing Wikipedia guidelines, and your opposition to them boils down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS:SMALLFONT seems unequivocal on this matter. While I understand that having it as a small font seems more intuitive and aesthetically pleasing (and I would have that if it were not against the Manual of Style), WP:IAR should only be used in extreme circumstances and I am not convinced that this is one of them. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS:SMALLFONT says Avoid using smaller font sizes within elements that already use a smaller font size, such as infoboxes, navboxes, and reference sections. This means that <small>...</small> tags, and templates such as {{small}} and {{smaller}}, should not be applied to already-reduced text within those elements. Under no circumstances should the resulting font size of any text drop below 85% of the page's default font size (i.e. 11.9 px in Vector skin or 10.8 px in Monobook). Sdrqaz is right that this is unequivocal. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:03, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So in the middle of this RFC, you go ahead & change all the other # US Congress, before a result is reached here. GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GoodDay, this RfC is not valid. MOS:SMALLFONT applies everywhere, based on existing consensus. To change it, you would have to raise the issue on Wikipedia:Manual of Style, not here. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note - An editor has proceeded to change all related articles to this RFC, concerning fontsize, while RFC was in progress. GoodDay (talk) 18:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendation: This RfC does not seem to be going anywhere productive. It would be advisable to perhaps engage in WP:MEDIATE instead of continuing this RfC. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Give it a month. I'll abide by its result, whatever that is, in mid-December. GoodDay (talk) 18:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also: Regardless of font size, shouldn't we use "from" instead of "since"? As in, "Kamala Harris, from January 20, 2021"? —GoldRingChip 22:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. However, that's for GoodDay to alter in their RfC if they wish. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"from" or "since" is irrelevant to me. I'm only concerned about the fontsize. You can change the wording if ya want, within the infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 00:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2020

On House Democratic Leadership:

Freshman Class Rep: Mondaire Jones

Steering and Policy Committee: Barbara Lee, Eric Swalwell, Cheri Bustos SavePercentage (talk) 03:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SavePercentage: Thank you for bringing this to our attention; the edit has been made. However, in the future please provide a source along with your edit request.
Sdrqaz (talk) 13:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IA-02 and NY-22

Hello everyone this is just a PSA that we may not have a clear winner in both IA-02 and NY-22. Both of these seats may end up being vacant by the time Congress begins due to how close the races will be. We might end up with 2 vacant seats in congress but we shall see what happens. Wollers14 (talk) 21:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Independents in the House

Out of curiosity, what is the source for the 4 House members listed as Independents in the party summary section? I have not seen any where that anyone is registered Independent? And if there is a source, is there any indication who they will caucus with? Thanks. Jdavi333 (talk) 14:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jdavi333: There doesn't seem to be a source for it because as far as I know, there aren't any members of the House taking office as independents. Burloak seemed to have subtracted four members from the Democrats and stuck them in the 'Independent' column in this edit. I've changed it to zero independents for now.
Sdrqaz (talk) 16:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So far there's 3 seats yet to be decided, fwiw. GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Committee chairs and ranking members

I was quite intrigued by this idea by KingOpti1012 to have the chairs and ranking members of congressional committees in the article. Although it was quickly reverted for lack of consensus, I think that having the section would be quite useful. As for the argument that such a section may be a little premature (given that the 117th Congress has not assembled yet), the list of congressional leadership positions had been in place over a year before the 2020 elections had occurred. I think the essay WP:DRNC (yes, I know, not binding policy) applies here: the section would be an improvement on the existing page and should be retained.

I would be happy to hear any of your opinions!

Sdrqaz (talk) 02:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't understand why this can't be included, as it's there for previous Congresses. Was there some dispute about consensus? Is the problem that these committee have yet to be chaired? If so, there are already party caucuses that are electing chairs. Furthermore, we can assume that the Senate will start with a Republican majority, even though the Georgia races have a chance of changing that. —GoldRingChip 12:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's a simple issue of committee membership not being known yet, besides for the issue of the Senate majority. Better to wait until committee assignments are given by the party leaders and chairpersons are elected. Jdavi333 (talk) 15:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Jdavi333: As I pointed out, in the earliest non-redirect version of the page in March 2019 here there was already lists of congressional leadership and U.S. representatives elected in the 2020 elections with "TBD" after every single entry. I don't think that it is a good enough reason to preclude a list of committee chairs and ranking members, even if the majority of posts are to be left with "TBD" in them. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @GoldRingChip: The reason given at the time was a lack of consensus, but I think WP:DRNC should apply here. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I don't see a reason to revert just due to "lack of consensus." Furthermore, the committee chairs are already being named, so it's no longer speculative. —GoldRingChip 15:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • There wasn't a reason for it to be reverted, it should be put back. Noting that none of the new committee chairs have been named, only been each party's House steering committee recommendations, subject to approval by each full caucus/conference. There is a history of the Democratic caucus rejecting the steering committee name, but even though the Republican side does not have this history, we should preclude them. While most (on the Democratic side at least) will move as committee leads (chair or ranking member) from the 116th to 117th, we should probably leave all as TBD until full confirmation given the uncertainty of how the Republicans will apply their three-term limit rules on each committee (we have a good idea, but no definitive statement by the party or sources beyond the latter's speculation. Noting that the congressional parties vote for most committee leads, but the party leaders (Speaker/Minority Leader) appoint for the Administration, Ethics, Intel and Rules committees (Intel also has internal term limits that affect membership). Of the special committees from the 116th, we know the Modernization of Congress Committee isn't continuing but I've not seen any word on the Climate Crisis Committee. Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted it per lack of consensus. Seeing as that has changed since? by all means keep'em & fill'em in. GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency in House races

I'm doing the best I can, to keep things consistent between this article & 2020 United States House of Representatives elections. For the moment, it's being difficult, concerning the 3 congressional districts: California-25, Iowa-2 & New York-22. To date, editors at both articles are in agreement about New York-22 not being called. But there's disagreement over the status of California-25 & Iowa-2. GoodDay (talk) 16:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Although neither California's 25th nor Iowa's 2nd has been called by the AP, the Democratic candidate in California's 25th (Christy Smith) has conceded the election.[1][2] With that concession, the election should be viewed as over and Rep. Mike Garcia as being re-elected to his seat. As for Iowa's 2nd, the AP has not called that election. It has reported that the Iowa Board of Canvass has certified the results,[3] but it has not called it. Given that her Democratic opponent, Rita Hart, has not conceded and the AP has yet to call that election, I am of the opinion that we should leave that seat for now as unresolved.
Sdrqaz (talk) 16:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated on the Elections article talk page, when state officials certify the results the election is over. AP calling a race or a loser conceding comes before certification. Obviously the loser is free to challenge the results (as the president is doing). But the election is official, even if only won by 1 vote. Jdavi333 (talk) 17:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm giving it a try, but in case I don't succeed. Would someone explain to @Wollers14: why it's important to complete his edits to this article & 2020 US House elections article? GoodDay (talk) 20:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: I have attempted to complete my edits to the best of my ability. I attempted to change some things in regards to it but sometimes I cannot access the reflist and make the changes required. If someone would like to explain that to me I would do that. There is also sometimes I do not notice the other changes made so that is my bad. However when it comes to IA-02 as @Jdavi333: is mentioning me. IA-02 is so close and the House which Democrats control may look at this and decide who wins the election. I don't know whether they will get involved or not but until we know we should keep IA-02 as undecided. We have to be absolutely certain about results like these before listing them especially a race this close because it is separated by 6 votes. I understand that the result has been certified but with a legal process that could change the result the race should remain undetermined. Wollers14 (talk) 21:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned at your talkpage. I don't mean to be cranky, but... GoodDay (talk) 21:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree on IA-2 due to the extraordinarily narrow margin and that seating is ultimately in the power of the House and not contingent on state certification. It's fine to drag out until we have a final conclusion, but not totally correct to state Miller-Meeks is the winner. This could be the next Coleman-Franken drag out until next July. Therequiembellishere (talk) 21:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine and dandy, but does not change the facts. If the house or a court overturns the results, then fine we'll change it. There is also a "chance" that state legislatures in PA, MI, and GA will not give Biden the electoral votes, yet Biden still won, at least for now. Jdavi333 (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, equating a six vote margin with a high probability of challenge to Trump's specious accusations of voter fraud is a bad faith argument to me. There are bullshit disputes (Trump's) and those with a legitimate chance (IA-2). There is no harm in leaving it blank given the high volatility in this exceedingly rare case (same thing for NY-22). Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My point is not to equate the validity of the election litigation. The point is, the election was certified. Yes it's close. Yes there will be court challenges. Yes Miller-Meeks might win by 1 vote and Nancy Pelosi might decide to subvert the will of the people and not seat her. The point is, right now we have the best indicator of who won: the state officials have certified the election. This is not like Minnesota (Franken) and Florida 2000 (Bush) where there was truly no winner for a long time. Jdavi333 (talk) 23:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Minnesota certified on November 18, 2008 with a different result. To be honest, it's not really our job as editors to make the determination through WP:SYNTH. What are reliable sources saying? If they have a consensus on declaring Miller-Meeks the winner (I think of the state certification as a primary source, not dunno if that's a universal standard), then we ca say so. If they don't, then we can leave it as TBD and be fine until it's resolved. I am fully the type of editor to reflect information once it's known. I am cautious in this particular case because I don't think it's certain. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see the point about Franken's "loss" being certified before the recount. However, that might be a detail in Minnesota state law which allows certification before a mandatory recount. Here, the Iowa recount has already occurred, with Miller-Meeks winning, and only then were the results certified. Jdavi333 (talk) 03:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to let this go, but Therequiembellishere has made an excellent point regarding WP:SYNTH. The majority of sources I see have not unequivocally said that Miller-Meeks won Iowa's 2nd, but have just reported that the state Board of Canvass has certified the results. It would be a false equivalence to compare the President's legal challenges and Rita Hart's challenge in the House Administration Committee. While I believe both are unlikely to succeed, one is far more unlikely than the other. Wikipedia should follow WP:RS. Where the reliable sources go, we go. It would not do harm to have the election in Iowa's 2nd be listed as unresolved for a few more days. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're litigating a result and parsing the possible differences between MN and IA election law. It's not our role. If you can show a good showing of reliable sources calling Miller-Meeks "Rep-elect" then we can say so. If most are holding back, then we have no business getting ahead of them. Therequiembellishere (talk) 05:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Des Moines Register has called her "Representative-elect" here ("A state board certified Iowa Republican Mariannette Miller-Meeks as the representative-elect for Iowa’s 2nd Congressional District Monday in a race that came down to just six votes — the closest federal election in the country this year.") Also here, and here. Jdavi333 (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jdavi333, as much as I love the Register, it and the other sources that you have listed are local Iowa sources and, more importantly, are articles before Hart decided to challenge the election under the Federal Contested Elections Act. That is a crucial development that cannot be ignored. According to reputable national sources, It wasn’t clear whether the process would prevent Miller-Meeks from taking office on Jan. 3 to represent the district.[4] The New York Times has said The other unresolved race is an open seat in Iowa’s Second District.[5] Where there is such a dispute, it would be better to err on the side of caution, especially where reliable sources are in conflict with each other. There is no deadline. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:53, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This AP article clearly refers to M-M as the winner. It also says that the most likely scenario (even assuming the House steps in) is to let her be sworn in separately (whatever that means) pending the appeal.
P.S. Thanks for that outdent. I didn't know to do that and the amount of colons being used was getting out of hand. Jdavi333 (talk) 17:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jdavi333, no problem at all. But as I've said before, there is a distinction between reporting that the state Board of Canvass has certified the results and actually calling the election. A more careful reading of that article would reveal that the AP has done the first; it has not done the second. We cannot treat likely scenarios as certainties. In the same paragraph, the AP said that the House could refuse to allow her to be seated. We should only say that Miller-Meeks has won Iowa's 2nd after it is certain that she has won, not when it is the most likely scenario. It is not Wikipedia's role to treat likely outcomes as certain. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to be a pain in the butt, but I really see it as the opposite. This race is more over than a state that has not yet certified its results, no matter how many media outlets have "called" it. Yes they might not seat her. And if they decide not to, we can change the article. But for now, the people who count and certify the ballots have done so. The fact that she won by 6 votes, or 1 vote, or 6 thousand votes, is irrelevant. Jdavi333 (talk) 17:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jdavi333, I think we're at an impasse. An RfC would probably be a lot more useful that continuing this debate here. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Such an RFC should cover both this article & the 2020 US House elections article. GoodDay (talk) 17:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, absolutely. I will post a notice there notifying users of the RfC here. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Same thing I said on the house races article: Wikipedia does not call races. It is NOT our decision when a race is to be called. It is the AP's decision and Iowa 2 is uncalled. If they felt that certification wasn't enough then we must follow. We need to put it back to uncalled, and we can put a note saying the results were certified but the race is uncalled because of legal challenges. 108.14.43.250 (talk) 17:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to you there. Jdavi333 (talk) 17:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Picket, Kerry (November 30, 2020). "Rep. Mike Garcia wins California's 25th Congressional District". Washington Examiner. Retrieved 2 December 2020.
  2. ^ "Christy Smith Concedes To Mike Garcia In LA County Congressional Race". CBS Los Angeles. November 30, 2020. Retrieved 2 December 2020.
  3. ^ Foley, Ryan J. (November 30, 2020). "Iowa board certifies 6-vote Republican win in US House race". Iowa City. The AP. Retrieved 2 December 2020.
  4. ^ Foley, Ryan J. (December 2, 2020). "Iowa Democrat to challenge 6-vote loss in appeal to US House". The Washington Post. The Associated Press. Retrieved 3 December 2020.
  5. ^ Ferré-Sadurní, Luis; McKinley, Jesse (December 2, 2020). "12 Votes Separated These House Candidates. Then 55 Ballots Were Found". The New York Times. Retrieved 3 December 2020.

RfC: should Mariannette Miller-Meeks be listed as the winner of Iowa's 2nd?

Should Mariannette Miller-Meeks be listed as the winner of Iowa's 2nd? Sdrqaz (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

  • No. Although MMM has been certified by the state Board of Canvass, Iowa's 2nd has been described by the New York Times as unresolved; there is no consensus among other news outlets following Hart's decision to challenge the results. Where the reliable sources go, we go. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. When media outlets "call" an election for a candidate, or when a candidate concedes, that is before the official results. Elections are counted and decided by state officials, when they count all the votes and certify the results. MMM won the election. She has more votes. What is immaterial is of she had 6 more votes, 1 more vote, or 6,000 more votes. The fact that it is so close and the losing candidate is filing litigation and appeals with a House Committee is irrelevant. If somehow the results are changed or the House decides to override the will of the voters and not swear her in, then we can react accordingly. Until then, she is the winner. She got more votes.
    As an aside, NY Times is very behind in a bunch of their elections, and they have not yet "called" NY-1 or NY-2, which these articles have as decided. Jdavi333 (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes: pending, of course, resolution by the House itself. Certified results do indeed show that Dr. Miller-Meeks won, but Rita Hart has appealed to the House of Representatives, as is her right. The Associated Press notes that "Miller-Meeks would likely be sworn in separately and allowed to serve pending the outcome of the contest, given that her victory has been certified by the state." Until and unless such sources state or claim otherwise, she is the Member-elect, pending the resolution of the issue by the House. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 22:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes: Iowa has certified the result. Hart, the Democrat is not contesting the recount or certification in the courts, simply refusing to concede and requesting the Democrat majority House override Iowa law - something which does have precedent. The fact Biden is referred to as president-elect despite not having been elected by the Electoral College, and Trump lawsuits ongoing (not that these will likely change anything), suggests there is a double standard in play which is skewing how things are treated. Either the winner of the votes is the Whatever-Elect, or they are not. This disparate treatment is a problem. If court or House action changes the outcomes then that can be reflected in corrections. 人族 (talk) 01:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • My only concern is that we're consistent between here, the 2020 US House elections & any other related articles :) GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 人族, it would be a false equivalence (comparing apples and oranges) to compare this dispute with the President's challenges to Biden's victory. Biden has been referred to as "president-elect" in virtually every reliable source. Miller-Meeks has not. The Washington Post and New York Times have not referred to her as "representative-elect", instead reporting on the certification and challenge in relatively neutral terms. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jdavi333, regarding how the New York Times is "slow", that is because its map is dependent on the AP's calls. The AP has not called the elections, so the Times' map does not show those elections as resolved. In the interests of consistency, New York's 1st has not been called by the AP, nor has there been a concession. Zeldin should not have been listed as the winner, and I will probably make edits to rectify that. New York's 2nd has not been called by the AP, but Jackie Gordon has conceded there and the Times has reported on that here, making it clear that Garbarino won. The Times' map seems to work independently from the news stories it writes. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:40, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia should not list anyone as the winner until the House of Representatives has decided a winner. The margin is just too close (6 votes) for a winner to be clear. That is why Rita Hart asked the House to decide the election. The House maintains the plenary power to decide elections, not state officials. If they wanted to, they could overturn an election where a winner is clear, so long as it reaches the House. It is not clear who the House will pick. Certified results do not matter for any House election, but the judgement of the House. Even though Iowa has certified the results in favor of Marianette Meeks, until the House decides a winner, she will not take office, unless they say she won. If they don’t resolve it by January 3, no one takes office and a special election will be held, similar to the 2018 North Carolina 9 race. Therefore, Wikipedia should wait to declare a winner of the Iowa 2 House race until the judgment of the House. Muhibm0307 (talk) 02:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Muhibm0307 I think it just as likely (i.e. 1,000,000:1 chance) that the house decides to refuse so seat M-M as it is that Republican legislatures in PA, MI, WI, and GA will refuse to give Biden the state's electoral votes. Although I would not put such a power grab beyond Nancy Pelosi, I think she would not be able to get the rest of her party on board with it. Even if M-M wins by 1 vote, that's still a win. Jdavi333 (talk) 02:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:117th_United_States_Congress&oldid=992255600"