User talk:GoldRingChip

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
   User Page        Talk Pages        Toolset        To do        sandbox        sb2        sb3        sb4        sb5        sb6        ushr        House elections        Senate elections        House special elections        Senate special elections        First Elected        Elected      
Leave a message HERE. I will post my replies here on THIS page.
If I left a message on
YOUR talk page, then please reply there.

Tlaib and Jones[edit]

Thanks for the correction. I hadn't realized that Jones won the special but Tlaib won the two-year term. Somehow I thought they were running in different districts. JTRH (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Yeah, it's a bit confusing epscially because there is somehow some uncertainty over whether Jones is allowed to hold her position in the Detroit City Council while also serving in Congress. As I see it, local political positions do not disqualify congressional office holders from serving, but they didn't ask me (boo-hoo). —GoldRingChip 15:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
    • There's some prohibition somewhere on dual office-holding, but I'm not sure how specific it is. JTRH (talk) 17:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
      • They seated her today after adopting a resolution allowing her to hold both. She'd undoubtedly have to resign from the City Council if she were going to be in Congress for more than a month. JTRH (talk) 19:32, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
        • Interesting. Do you have information/sources about this? —GoldRingChip 13:03, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
          • JTRH (talk) 13:07, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
            • Thank you. From that article: "The Constitution doesn’t outright bar members of Congress from also holding another elective office, but the idea is generally frowned upon." The only bar I know is that members of the House can't also serve in the Senate, or in the Executive or Judidicial branches of the federal government. I believe there is no bar to serving in state or local positions. However, most members have historically behaved as if there is such a bar. Having said that, this House resolution is more symbolic (or reassuring) than legal. Therefore, she was elected and qualified on election day and her service technically begain November 6, 2018. Does that sound correct? —GoldRingChip 13:11, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
              • It depends on whether "under the United States" in "no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office" (Art. I, Sec. 6) applies to state/local office or only to federal. I thought that it had historically been interpreted to mean both, but apparently not. I'm not sure the resolution is merely symbolic if it sets a precedent for someone else to do it in the future. I remain convinced that they wouldn't grant that consent for someone elected to a full term. The Congresswoman I worked for 30 years ago had to resign from her previous position in the state Senate in order to go to DC, and I don't think it would have ever occurred to anyone that she could have done both simultaneously. JTRH (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
                • Statement about the Jones resolution from Speaker Ryan on Dec. 6: "The Speaker, with the concurrence of the Democratic Leader, finds that this resolution (1) represents a narrow exception to the restriction established by the House on January 20, 1909, that the duties of a Member of the House and the Governor of a State are ``absolutely inconsistent and may not be ``simultaneously discharged by the same Member and (2) does not address the Constitutional qualifications of a Member." So there is precedent for a ban on simultaneous dual office-holding, and I see no reason to believe that someone serving in Congress for longer than a month would be permitted to hold another office at the same time. JTRH (talk) 13:59, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Rhode Island[edit]


I saw you had edited this page. Nice job. Hayholt (talk) 22:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

A cookie for you![edit]

Choco chip cookie.png Thanks for moving the page names of election articles to comply with the consensus naming conventions. Appreciate it! Marquardtika (talk) 16:22, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Rick Scott[edit]

Hi. I'm not sure how to revert your edit to the Senate chart, because there have been multiple intervening edits to the article since then. But if Scott isn't being sworn in to the Senate until January 8, that means that between the 3rd and the 8th, there will be 52 voting Republican Senators and a vacancy from Florida, unless he appoints a Senator to a five-day term until he leaves office as Governor. His seniority date may or may not be January 3; my understanding is that those who take office later than their classmates don't have the same seniority. There are a couple of precedents I need to look up. JTRH (talk) 00:08, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks for bringing this to me instead of reverting. He may choose not be be sworn in, but he'll be a Senator once his term starts. As long as being Governor doesn't disqualify him, and I believe it doesn't. —GoldRingChip 00:44, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Isn't the chart supposed to reflect actual voting strength? He won't be able to vote until he's actually sworn in, even if he retroactively gets seniority beginning on the 3rd. So there will be 52 voting Republicans for five days, and 53 after that. JTRH (talk) 01:01, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Interesting point. Frankly, I don't know. I'm not sure what it's "supposed" to reflect. Maybe "how many people are in the House/Senate"? But in the past, we've always had it reflect the actual number of people in the house. If he was in a coma he would still count even though he'd hard-pressed to vote. In the past, howver, there have been some disputes about this and I haven't been able to find some good solid external reference that says it definitively. Some cites will accept that until someone is sworn then they're not a Senator, but others don't. Until it's settled, however, let's leave it as: he's a member, but have an {{efn}} note the distinction. —GoldRingChip 01:06, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
      • Roll Call reports that he will have less seniority than the other members of the class. A quick bit of research indicates at least two other cases - Mark Hatfield (Oregon, 1967) and Jay Rockefeller (West Virginia, 1985) - of outgoing governors who waited until their terms expired to be sworn into the Senate a few days after January 3. Both had seniority from the date of the actual oath-taking, not from the day the term would have begun. There is apparently no precedent for simultaneous dual office-holding; Brenda Jones in the House this month required a unanimous consent request which undoubtedly wouldn't have been granted to a member elected to a full term. You don't count until you're actually sworn in. JTRH (talk) 07:15, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
        • This remains a debatable point, however, so let's please leave it as term begins Jan 3, but with a note. Most laws I've seen say that a term begins when 1) Elected and 2) Qualified. Furthermore, Brenda Jones didn't "require" a unanimous consent request, but she did get it which removed (most) doubt. Furthermore, seniority is only one of the many factors to consider: office space, salary, staffing, and there's more I can't remember right now. It's not up to Wikipedia to decide who's a Senator and who's not, however, so I don't think we can solve this ourselves. The real question you and I are debating is whether we count 52 or 53 senators on January 3. I agree with you that Scott won't be able to vote and whatever else, but we're really just nitpicking about the numbers on a chart, right? —GoldRingChip 13:34, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
          • I think it's clear that there will be 52, not 53, on January 3. There is no question that he can't vote until he takes the oath of office. Until that time, there will be 52 Republican senators and a vacancy. A few years ago, the House had to redo a vote which was originally taken on the afternoon of January 3, because a couple of people voted who had not been in the chamber earlier in the day when the oath was administered, and they were therefore not eligible to vote as members of Congress until they were sworn in. (They were not new members; they were incumbents in the previous Congress, but those terms expired at noon. You have to take the oath at the beginning of each term.) The term begins on January 3, but whether Scott will be there to fill it is a separate question. If he thought he could be eligible to simultaneously hold both offices, he would simply show up in DC on January 3, but the fact that he's not doing that seems to answer the question. JTRH (talk) 13:44, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
            • Can we please open this up to a larger discussion instead of just insisting that it's about Scott's voting, Scott's unilateral opinion, or "it's clear that there will be 52"? —GoldRingChip 17:17, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
              • Larger discussion of what? JTRH (talk) 18:04, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
                • of "when does a Senator (or member of the House) become a member of that body?" and of "when should we include them in the 'Party Summary' section" etc? —GoldRingChip 18:09, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
                  • According to the Constitution, you become a member when you take the oath. There seems to be a clear precedent that your seniority is the oath date except if you're elected in a special. If they can't vote, there's no reason to count them in the Party Summary section. JTRH (talk) 18:14, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── But neither Article VI nor the The Hill article you cite says that "you become a member when you take the oath." There are other things like voting, office space, seniority, salaries, staff, etc. Although the The Hill article does have a member say the non-sworn member "was technically a non-member," it's a partisan claim and not dispositive. Again, I'm just getting at the base issue of "when does a member become a member" not about voting and all the other stuff. —GoldRingChip 16:03, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Membership is defined by voting eligibility, which is defined by having taken the oath. Seniority and office space are tangential issues. JTRH (talk) 17:08, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Until you take the oath, you're a "member-elect." Members-elect can have office space, hire staff, be listed for seniority purposes, etc., but their status as members is defined by the taking of the oath. JTRH (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Where did you get "Membership is defined by voting eligibility"? —GoldRingChip 22:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
When you take the oath, you transition from "member-elect" to "member" and are eligible to vote. I've been reading the annotated Rules of the House. JTRH (talk) 22:12, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
A-ha! That could be useful. Can you post a link? —GoldRingChip 22:14, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Category:Government in the United States has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Government in the United States, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

1892 US House of Representatives Elections[edit]

After a mild panic from seeing how things were switched I've switched them back, temporarily at least as I copy the data over to my sandbox. The format that I chose I've been meaning to proposed as a new format for House elections as it would display a fuller list of data, including vote totals alongside percentages, whether candidates were endorsed by other parties, the names of Parties (or rather candidates in some cases) to avoid long lists of acronyms which may require the reader to scroll to the top (something that has happened more then once when I was looking at data for lesser known minor parties), and so on. That said, I've never really known anyone else that was working on the pages or if there was a group akin to the ... semi-functional Presidential Elections group I've been a member of. Is there somewhere I can propose the new format I've come up with? --Ariostos (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I don't know if anyone else is working on them. I've been going through them since 1788/89 and am up to 1816/1817, and I suggest looking to those early-year articles for formatting styles. Meanwhile, acronyms can be avoided by writing out the proper name. I hope that helps. —GoldRingChip 21:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC)