Talk:Jim Jeffords

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Leadership votes[edit]

A leadership vote is a vote on which the party leadership declares (through the Whip) that all members of the caucus must vote with the leadership unless excused. Members are routinely excused if their constituency might vote them out of office over the issue. It is rare that a particular vote is a leadership vote for one party but not the other. When a vote splits closely along party lines, it is almost certainly a leadership vote, though that isn't normally public information per se. Those who cross party lines almost always do so with permission from the Whip. Those who flaunt the system are not ostracized (as you show with the Traficant example) because doing so would just cause the member to switch parties in most cases. Rather, less drastic steps are taken like denying the chairmanship of a committee or subcommittee. Jeffords left the Republicans because he wasn't excused from a leadership vote, voted against the leadership, and was punished. Bernie Sanders is also an excellent example, though my understanding (2nd hand) is that Sanders' deal requires him to vote with the leadership on both procedural and substantive matters. The Ron Paul case is interesting because he wasn't technically elected as an independent, but still has blanket freedom on substantive leadership votes. To the best of my knowledge this is unique since parties formed in the US. - Mcarling 20:49, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Actually, to be technically accurate all U.S. Senators are free to vote as they like on substantive matters - they must merely be prepared to face the consequences. Since the Democratic and Republican Caucuses in both the Senate and the House assign committee seats and seniority, this is a very dangerous and rarely taken course of action. As I'm sure you know, committees are where most work gets done on the Hill, so serving in Congress without committee assignments would be like being in college without taking any classes - you wouldn't ever get anything accomplished (although it might be fun.....). An example of this step being taken was in 2002 when the House Democratic Caucus suspended Jim Traficant (D-OH) just prior to his expulsion from Congress. The Democrats never suspended Traficant in the many years before that, despite his many votes against established Democratic Party positions on bills - only after it had become clear that he had broken the law, and was on his way to being expelled from Congress and convicted, was he suspended from the Caucus. This means that all "Independents" or "Third-Party" Members of Congress must caucus with one of the two major parties, and this usually involves voting for that party in the leadership elections. An example more similar to Jeffords' than Ron Paul would Bernie Sanders, the longtime Independent Congressman from Jeffords' own state of Vermont. Sanders, a Socialist elected as an Independent, has caucused with the Democrats since 1991 while maintaining his official Independent status. This is how I understand the parliamentary procedure in the House and the Senate, especially in regards to third-party/independent elected officials. I may well be mistaken or under-informed, but I'd appreciate a clarification of your terms in that case, especially "declared leadership votes" and "procedural leadership votes." --Xinoph 19:57, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)

I thought Traficant was not given any caucus seats because he broke party lines and voted for Hastert instead of Gephardt in the speaker elections.--Jiang 03:00, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Xinoph, do you know what a leadership vote it? If you don't, it might not seem interesting to you that Jim Jeffords is free to vote as he likes on substantive matters. You may think that all US Senators are free to vote as they like on all substantive matters. Actually, Jim Jeffords is unique among current US Senators in that he doesn't need to seek permission from the Whip to vote against the leadership on declared leadership votes on substantive matters. He still needs permission on procedural leadership votes (which is rarely given). - Mcarling 16:40, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Direct mail[edit]

Rmisiak's addition reads suspiciously like original research from someone who received a Jefford fundraising appeal in err, in which case it doesn't belong here. If that's not the case, please cite an external new source reporting on the alleged controversy. RadicalSubversiv E 19:58, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Talk show gossip[edit]

Some national talk shows have implied that his not running in '06 is the result of his being in the early stages of dementia and that he recently showed up in the House chamber thinking that he was in the Senate. Now, this sort of thing doesn't belong in the article without better sourcing, but would seem to explain a lot. Rlquall 06:28, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

My understanding, from someone in a position to know, is that these stories are true. It's odd that there still has been no official word on this (and very little reporting). Of course we cannot put anything about this in the article itself without sources.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Ironic wording[edit]

I suggest rewording this, it just seems creepy to me:
Jeffords married his late wife, Elizabeth "Liz" Daley twice —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I find it creepy too! I would suggest expanding it to:
Jeffords married is wife, Elizabeth "Liz" Daley twice. She died of <reason> on <date>.
(Ewwww maried his late wife... ewww ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artoftransformation (talkcontribs) 01:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Attempted Murder[edit]

What about this: [1]

Is this true? 04:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's a website with the details...believe it or not

committee assignments[edit]

What were his committee assignments when he left the Senate, besides Public Works and HELP? (talk) 02:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)