Talk:Seniority in the United States Senate/Archives/2017

Historical rank

Am I alone in thinking that adding the historical rank of Senators is completely irrelevant to the point of the table. Furthermore putting it in the first column gives it way too much prominence and looks confusing Conservative Thinker (talk) 15:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• I agree that it sees too prominent in the left (first) column. Perhaps it should be moved to the last column, or maybe just switched with the first column?

How about this (below), which moves it to the second column, makes the title smaller, and removes the heading format (bold)?—GoldRingChip 17:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Current rank	Historical rank	Senator	Seniority date	First tie-breaker	Second tie-breaker	Committee and leadership positions
1	1692	Patrick Leahy (D-VT)	January 3, 1975			Ranking Member: Judiciary
2	1708	Orrin Hatch (R-UT)	January 3, 1977			President pro tempore Chairman: Finance
3	1719	Thad Cochran (R-MS)	December 27, 1978			Chairman: Appropriations
4	1745	Chuck Grassley (R-IA)	January 3, 1981			Chairman: Judiciary
5	1766	Mitch McConnell (R-KY)	January 3, 1985			Majority Leader
6	1773	Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)	January 3, 1987	Former Representative (10 years)		Ranking Member: Appropriations
7	1775	Richard Shelby (R-AL)		Former Representative (8 years)		Chairman: Banking

References

I'd say last column or just exclude it altogether. It is the least important thing on the chart. Is there even a practical purpose for this ranking? I can't imagine La Follette coming back from the grave to finally get a chairmanship... Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 17:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Personally I would remove it altogether as I consider it irrelevant to the table. If however, others want to keep it I would suggest that it should be the last column but if not the change suggested above with it being the second column is a distinct improvement. Conservative Thinker (talk) 23:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Having it in the second column makes sense to me. I think we'd lose something if we removed it altogether. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The purpose for my adding it (yes, it was me) was two-fold: (1) for the sake of showing relative seniority for some members, especially the most senior ones. As you see from the sample above, there were 83 Senators between Patrick Leahy and Richard Shelby; and (2) to compare one Congress's list with another's. For example, the list of Current Senators compared to those in the 113th Congress. —GoldRingChip 15:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The reason I would move to the second column, and not the end (far right side) is: it would look weird on the right side. In the second column it goes nicely alongside the "Current rank."—GoldRingChip 15:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

While I don't have an opinion on whether the historical rank should be removed or not, I think if it stays it should be explained what it means. I don't think the meaning is obvious (it doesn't help that the numbers might be interpreted as year numbers), I certainly didn't understand it directly and had to look at at the respective lists for earlier senates to confirm what the intended meaning of "historical rank" was. 2001:4DD7:8B6F:0:5EC5:D4FF:FE90:14C9 (talk) 11:18, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, good point. I'll work on it.—GoldRingChip 14:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

December 2017 upcoming changes

Luther Strange remains in office until his successor is sworn in, not when the polls close in Alabama. Al Franken is resigning, but the effective date has not been announced. Neither of their listings should change until circumstances actually change. JTRH (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2017 (UTC)