Talk:115th United States Congress

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

U.S. Congress Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is about one (or many) event(s). United States: Government Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Mid-importance). Politics: American Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as High-importance).

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Why the hell was my edit reverted?! The statement implies that Obama will definitely not be President between 2017 and 2019. How the hell do we know that for sure at this point? The man has gotten away with rigging the 2012 presidential election and has broken the law so many numerous times, that he is capable of anything. He may make an executive order that may prevent any further elections from taking place. In addition to that, the statement is completely unnecessary. What is wrong with you people?? If I don't get a response to this by 19:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC), I will remove the statement. Classicalfan626 (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the statement. Reverting a legitimate edit without sufficient reasoning is insane. Classicalfan626 (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't question your opinion here. However, this is not a good forum for political discussion. Please see
  WP:SOAP.—GoldRingChip 13:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Executive Orders are also subject to judicial review. If I need to explain more I can. Simmons123456 (talk) 23:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This isn't relevant to this article and this is not a good forum for political discussion. Please see
  WP:SOAP.—GoldRingChip 13:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Disagree. The same could be done for every one of the 114 articles before this (well, not the 1st as they are were new). Lots of interesting data could be added, but it becomes a morass of trivia at that point.—GoldRingChip 16:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We had two new senators elected in 2016. I highlighted them to show how this small change could help convey important information. I understand, that to be consistent, we would need to update all the previous articles. However, I thought we could wait and see what other comments were received. If the author of this articles want to revert this, I understand. —

• Again disagree. Since the proposal is to change, then we should leave as is until a consensus is obtained.—GoldRingChip 16:09, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't be listing Paul Ryan & Orrin Hatch, until they're actually re-elected Speaker & President pro temp. Assuming this will occur (due to Republican majorities in both chambers), we should wait when it does on January 3, 2017. GoodDay (talk) 21:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree.—GoldRingChip 16:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be reasonable to list them as presumptive speaker and president pro temp. john k (talk) 02:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. GoodDay (talk) 07:05, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If we're not going to list them, we shouldn't list Pence either, as he has not been formally elected vice president by the Electoral College yet. john k (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Vice President doesn't need to be elected by the House or Senate, unless he/she's being appointed. GoodDay (talk) 07:05, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with User:GoodDay for reasons stated.—GoldRingChip 14:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Vice President does need to be elected by the electoral college, which Pence has not been yet. Hatch is going to be elected President pro temp, Ryan is going to be elected Speaker, and Pence is going to be elected VP. I don't understand the distinction we're making here. Either pro forma elections where we know the result can be treated as faits accomplis or they can't. Don't understand why we'd treat the electoral college differently from the House and Senate elections of officers. john k (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, legally, the President pro tempore holds his position until the Senate passes a resolution appointing a new President pro tempore. Per tradition, this only occurs if the President pro-tempore has left office, or party control of the Senate has flipped. Since the Senate does not reorganize from scratch at the beginning of a new Congress (unlike the House), Hatch will remain the President pro tempore until the Senate decides to pass a resolution replacing him. This will not happen on January 3, 2017. See footnote 15 in this CRS Report.: http://www.senate.gov/CRSpubs/cf80c40a-29bc-4d1b-9dec-541dff2349b6.pdf. 69.251.76.228 (talk) 22:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So Hatch is actually like Biden. Pence is more tenuous than Hatch. john k (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please WAIT until the full House & full Senate vote on the Speaker & Pres pro temp, in January 2017. Be patient. GoodDay (talk) 02:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree: wait for Speaker. Disagree: don't wait for PPT. If, as user:69.251.76.228 and user:John K state above that PPT are continuous, then Hatch will always be PPT unless/until elected otherwise.—GoldRingChip 15:49, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. Since the PPT doesn't require re-election & PPT-emeritius is merely an honorary title, I restored them. GoodDay (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain to me the logic of ordering the Senators by class rather than seniority? The class names are basically never used by anybody, while seniority is the usual means of distinguishing between senators in a state. I realize that all our Congress articles list by class, but I see no good reason to do this, and this would be the obvious place to start if we wanted to switch it up. I'd like to see a good reason to list by class, rather than just "this is how we do it." john k (talk) 17:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Ranking by seniority would be confusing in this article which is more of a summary list article. Yes, it's sometimes used but rarely in lists like these. If we rank by seniority, then we should rank House members as well, which is too cumbersome. It becomes especially confusing when a senior senator leaves mid-Congress and is replaced by a new junior senator… then how do we list that state? Leave it to the articles about seniority which its better fleshed out. In the end, the classes make as much sense as house districts. —GoldRingChip 12:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Rarely in lists like these"? What's the basis for that? And for leaving mid-congress, we order by the senior senator at the start of the congress, and then indent the later senators in that seat as we already do. And, no, weshould not rank house members by seniority, because they have districts, which is a more valuable way of ranking them (though it might make sense to list members in the old multi-members districts by seniority).

And, no, the classes do not make as much sense as house districts. That Bob Brady represent's Pennsylvania's 1st Congressional District is something you'll find in basically any material describing him. It's right there on the front page of his congressional website, just as it is for basically all congressmen. No senator is ever described or ever describes himself as sitting in the "Class 2 seat". They are always described as the senior or junior senator. We are supposed to describe things the way the majority of our sources do. Sources overwhelmingly talk about Senior and Junior Senators, and almost never about classes, which are a weird technical thing almost nobody knows about or talks about, at least in those terms (we certainly talk about how senators are in the class that is up in 2018, or whatever, but you've got me which class number that is). So, in conclusion, there's nothing "confusing" about listing by seniority, the idea that it is "rarely used" in "lists like these" is completely unsupported, and your comparison to the House is totally irrelevant, since house members represent districts, while senators represent whole states. john k (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If we change to seniority listing, then how would we order a situation in which a senior resigns mid-Congress and is replaced now by a junior?—GoldRingChip 20:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The same way we do now. The seniority would be clear from the dates given in those cases. john k (talk) 23:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So is Dick Durbin or Patty Murray the Senate Democratic/Minority Whip? Are there two?—GoldRingChip 14:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Assistant Minority Leader also the Minority Whip? GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one Whip, and he's Durbin; if you read Party leaders of the United States Senate, you'll see the other position is a new #3. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 15:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Murray's title is confusing, to say the least. GoodDay (talk) 15:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote 9 states that a representative's term starts the day of a special election, rather than the day they are seated, however, there is no citation for this. Also, the House itself has yet to recognize him as a member, and the election results are not yet certified, so referring to him as having taken office may be premature. ScorpiumX (talk) 02:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When did Smith become a US Senator? January 2 or 3, 2018? Similiar dispute occurring at Tina Smith & Seniority in the United States Senate articles. GoodDay (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure it was when she resigned as Lt. Gov (11:59 PM on January 2), since Dayton made the appointment before Franken actually resigned, so I would imagine it would take effect immediately.

talk) 23:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress#Capitals. —GoldRingChip 12:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's a Journal of Politics study which provides a neat and concise assessment of the 115 Congress. Parts of the assessment from this peer-reviewed study are quoted in the lede. Journal of Politics is widely considered among the top three political science journals, so claims that the journal is biased or somehow non-RS are ludicrous.

Hello Snooganssnoogans I’ve found that your claim lacks sources. The part saying that the Journal of Politics is among the Top three political science journals. Is widely considered (by whom)? The only stat I found is that it is ranked 24th in impact. That is a high rating yes but I’ve done some looking and I’ve not found the evidence that makes your claim to be true. Allow me to be clear I’m not looking to start trouble or anything I just wish to have the evidence that makes your claims about the Journal of Politics true. Wollers14 (talk) 05:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[1][2][3][4].

talk) 01:00, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Alright thank you for responding. Be careful though with this study people will find it to be biased. So here let me propose something that may ease the concerns of those people. If you can find other reviews from previous congresses then I think that there will be no problems with those people. Also it can be from any of the the top three you mentioned earlier I know I'm not an admin I'm just concerned about the page and edit warring occurring between you and other editors. Try doing the earliest congress you can find. If you don't wish to do it I understand the sources do seem legit but my main goal is to resolve this issue and I think that what I mentioned before is the best course of action to keep other users from finding bias in the statement. Thank you for responding and hopefully this issue can be resolved.Wollers14 (talk) 03:32, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my duty to fix similar pages for other Congresses. If there are studies that summarize other Congresses, I would of course not hesitate to add them.

talk) 10:53, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I never said it was your duty. Did you check to see if there were other studies? By any of the top three mentioned above? Wollers14 (talk) 16:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other studies that reflect the findings of the ones in the lede[5][6].

There are two parts of the of the Journal of Politics saying the exact same thing. One of them needs to be removed.Wollers14 (talk) 04:23, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neither part need to be removed. A lede is supposed to summarize the body, and that's what the lede does.

talk) 04:29, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Here it seems we are at an impasse how about we contact an admin about this because it just doesn't look right to me. How about we contact the Admin that moniters this page and we can make our cases to them without the need of an edit war here.Wollers14 (talk) 04:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Several key pieces of legislation as missing from this article. The article includes the 2017 NDAA, but fails to include the 2018 NDAA. Furthermore, the farm bill (I do not know the name) should be included under proposed legislation, as it can reasonably be expected to become law soon. Other key proposed legislation includes the JOBS Act 3.0 and the prison reform bill passed by the House. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordofChaos55 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• OK… will you please add them? (See
  WP:Be Bold!) —GoldRingChip 20:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Just a note on the text for the map on the 2016 results in the section House of Representatives. The text suggests that the pale colours are holds and the "brighter" colours are gains. The "brighter" colours are not actually brighter. They are deeper or darker. The "paler" colours are actually brighter. --82.2.5.153 (talk) 02:10, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from User talk:GoldRingChip § Current House vacancies

Trying to be accurate, so shouldn't the current House vacancies in the 115th congress be listed as A special election will be held November 6, 2018, rather than Seat will remain vacant for the remainder of the term and Not filled this Congress?....Pvmoutside (talk) 00:23, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• You're talking about OK01, FL06, and WV03, right? I suspect, as you state, that there's a mistake there and there will be specials. The citation used for OK01 states,

  The law states that if a vacancy occurs in an even-numbered year and the term expires the following year, there will not be a special election. Instead, the candidate who wins the general election will be appointed to serve out the last few months of Bridenstine’s term.
  Under the Constitution, governors must call special elections to fill House vacancies.
  Asked about the constitutionality of an appointment to a House seat, Oklahoma State Elections Board spokesman Bryan Deal wrote in an email that he was not aware of any legal challenges to the law.

  So I suspect that's incorrect, too. —GoldRingChip 00:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I just looked up the Oklahoma law. That is indeed what it says. Constitutionally, there may be a difference between designating someone who's won an election for a term starting in January, to take office immediately, as opposed to an "appointment." But I don't know. Maybe there will be a legal challenge when it happens next month. JTRH (talk) 12:52, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "§26-12-101. Vacancies in Congress.
    A. Except as otherwise provided by law, whenever a vacancy shall occur in the office of a member of the United States Senate or United States House of Representatives from Oklahoma, such vacancy shall be filled at a Special Election to be called by the Governor within thirty (30) days after such vacancy occurs.
    B. No special election shall be called if the vacancy occurs in an even-numbered year if the term of the office expires the following year. In such case, the candidate elected to the office at the regular General Election shall be appointed by the Governor to fill the unexpired term.
    Added by Laws 1974, c. 153, § 12-101, operative Jan. 1, 1975. Amended by Laws 1979, c. 240, § 19, emerg. eff. June 1, 1979; Laws 1994, c. 260, § 27, emerg. eff. May 26, 1994; Laws 2001, 1st Ex.Sess., c. 5, § 1, emerg. eff. Oct. 24, 2001; Laws 2002, c. 380, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2002; Laws 2012, c. 3, § 1, emerg. eff. March 19, 2012." JTRH (talk) 12:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)}}[reply]
    • That's surprising, actually. I guess we'll have to wait to see what happens in OK. —GoldRingChip 13:03, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• yep, those were the districts.....I changed them to where I hope it reads better now......feel free to change if you think something works better....Pvmoutside (talk) 03:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the seat is not going to have a special election, then saying "until determined by general election" makes the uninformed reader think that the seat will be filled in November. It really should say for the remainder of the term. —GoldRingChip 12:42, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Im pretty sure that is incorrect GoldRingChip.....Terms last until January 3rd, where the open seats will be filled in sometime in November, after the general election but before the term ends in January.....Pvmoutside (talk)
      • But then it would be by special election, held at the same date (in these cases) as the general election. —GoldRingChip 17:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • The ref for OK01 you cite above further states:
          The law states that if a vacancy occurs in an even-numbered year and the term expires the following year, there will not be a special election. Instead, the candidate who wins the general election will be appointed to serve out the last few months of Bridenstine’s term
          .....Pvmoutside (talk) 17:28, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • This Oklahoma statute appears on its face to contradict the federal law that Members of the House must be elected and are not appointed. It's not my place, however, to argue the legally of this (see
            WP:OR), so think we should just let that one play itself out in November. The other two races, however, don't seem to claim that winning the general can somehow make you appointed to finish a vacancy. I suspect either: 1) the seat will be vacant until January 3; or 2) there will be a special election on the same day to finish the term along with the general for the next term. Those are the two options that have been used in every other election to this point. —GoldRingChip 17:44, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
            ]
            • I just checked a sample ballot for a county in WV03. There is no designation of a special election on the ballot. JTRH (talk) 17:49, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I would like an Admin to take a look at Snooganoogan's Journal of Politics lead and in the Major Legislation section and determine whether or not it is valid. Because it just does not look right to me as a writer myself. I would argue that the one on the lead be removed and the one in the Major Legislation section remain. If an Admin can take a look and give us a verdict on this issue we can move on from here.Wollers14 (talk) 04:49, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am an Admin, but that doesn't make me (or any Admin) the arbiter of the rules or of what belongs on a page.

However, I am active on this and simliar pages as I have been for many years, so I have experience to share and advice to give.

Here are the two rules to consider here:

1. Wikipedia is built by consensus; nobody owns or controls pages. There are no "sides" who can ever "win," so you (and others) must draft something with which you all agree.
2. There's no value in political arguments on Wikipedia, that's not why it's here… WP is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox.

Having said that, here is my (non-authoritive) advice:

• An external opinion is still an opinion, so watch out for POV even in external references.
• External opinions may be included if they are framed as such.
• External opinoins should be reduced to the barest necessity to make the point, leaving a link for a reader to explore outside of this encyclopedia.

Therefore, reduce it to one very short, simple, and vague sentence in the lead, with nothing needed in the legislation section.

—GoldRingChip 14:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I’ll see what I can do. Wollers14 (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The content in question is extremely informative and tells readers concisely and clearly what happened during this Congress. The content has long-term encyclopedic value, and it frankly cannot be summarized in one sentence. The content in question is also unusually well-sourced. The notion that the peer-reviewed research in one the top three political science journals amounts to "opinion" is false.

talk) 17:05, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I never said it was an opinion allow me to reiterate that I did not do this because I found it to be biased. I did it because it was repeated and it needed to change. Wollers14 (talk) 19:17, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GoldRingChip edit warring by Snooganssnoogans is appalling and is something you can do something about considering this is within AP2 snctions area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:4B4:0:0:0:1001 (talk) 18:49, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have reduced the political discussion. It could be useful perhaps in a different article? —GoldRingChip 19:46, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Kavanaugh Feinstein 20180906.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:06, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]