Senate "Majority" Question:

[Hosnon]

What are the procedures when neither party has 51? In other words, if the two independents didn't caucus with the Democrats, would there even be a "majority" leader? How would the committees be organized?

How does that work? Anyone know?:shrug:

And I apologize in advance to those of you who thought that this thread was going to be about me not thinking the Dems had a majority (due to the quotations in the title). :)

[beaconess]

1. If the Senate was split 50-50, the party of the President would be the majority

since the VP, as president of the Senate, breaks ties.

The committees, in such case, would be controlled by the President's party, although the minority party is in a good position to negotiate very high representation on the committees to reflect their numbers in the body.This was the case after the 2000 election and remained that way until Jeffords switched to Independent and announced he would caucus with the Dems.

[Hosnon]

4. Not 50-50. I'm asking about when it is 49-49-2. nt

[beaconess]

8. 50-50 means no majority - majority being 51.

If it's 49 Republican/49 Democrat/2 Independent and the Independents didn't align with either party, it would be the same as if it were 50-50. The Vice President would break the ties and since he would vote with his party, that party would be the majority since he would make it 50-49-2.

If, on the other hand, it were 48 Republican/49 Democrat/3 Independent and the Independents didn't caucus with either side, the Vice President would not count toward his party's total, so the Dems would hold the majority 49-48.

[Hosnon]

9. Ok. Imagine it is 45-45-10. nt

[beaconess]

11. The President's party would still be the majority

because his vote would make it 46-45-10.

[Hosnon]

13. I see what you're saying...but that's still not a majority. Do the Senate rules use the

term "majority" or refer to the party with the most members?

[nankerphelge]

2. I'm pretty sure it...

goes to the party of the vice president, since he or she would break the tie. Can't be sure though - I have a vague recollection.

[Hosnon]

6. See above...not asking about a 50-50 split. nt

[tritsofme]

3. I don't know if this has ever happened

But I suppose the party with the most seats could claim leadership and organize the Senate.

[Hosnon]

7. That's what I'm thinking too. And I guess you wouldn't have a Majority Leader...but a

Plurality Leader.

[beaconess]

12. Right - Plurality Leader would be the more accurate term :-)

[Hosnon]

19. Do the Senate Rules confer organizing power on a Plurality Leader? nt

[MiniMe]

5. Not sure, but it must have to do with who you caucus with

[The Magistrate]

10. To The Best Of My Knowledge, Sir, There Are None

Nor does any historical precedent come to my immediate recollection. The inducements that could be offered an independent to join one or the other groups in the situation would be such that it is hard to imagine a person holding out against them. A straight 49 to 49 vote, with two abstentions, would be a tie, that the Vice-President would break, and this would probably suffice for majority status....

[tritsofme]

14. It is an interesting hypothetical though

The Senate is 47-45-8, the 8 indies have no intention of caucusing with either party.

How does the Senate get organized?

[beaconess]

16. Whoever has the 47 would be the majority party and control the Senate

If it were 47-46-7, it would be the same - the party with 47 would control.

If it were 47-47-6 - the Vice President's party would control.

Bottom line - whoever has the most members on their side controls. If it's a tie, the Vice President's party controls.

[tritsofme]

17. I think that's what the point of this thread has been.

To establish whether a simple majority is needed to organize the Senate.

If you're right, then one isn't needed, a plurality will suffice.

[Hosnon]

18. Right. Does the term "majority leader" refer to the leader of the party with

a majority of the Senate or is it a misnomer that really refers to the leader of the party with a plurality of the Senate (The term is "majority" because it has simply always been the case that the plurality party in the Senate and the majority party in the Senate were the same)?

If the former, how is a 40-40-20 Senate organized if the organizing party must have a majority?

I'm guessing it is the latter but don't know...hence this thread.

[Hosnon]

15. I think that is the consensus so far on the this thread.

But I don't think it is out of the realm of possibility simply because it has never happened before and it is probably unlikely.

It could happen and I'm curious as to the procedures if it did happen.

[beaconess]

20. Check this out :

In 1953, the convergence of unusual circumstances gave the Democrats the plurality of the Senate's membership while the Senate Republicans maintained their majority party status. The situation made it impossible for the new Republican leader to control the legislative agenda. Indeed, Senator William Knowland lamented his ineffectiveness on the Senate floor, "Mr. President, . . . I have the responsibilities of being the majority leader in this body without having a majority." The minority leader, Lyndon Johnson, shot back, "If anyone has more problems than a majority leader with a minority, it is a minority leader with a majority." Though witty, the retort was hardly accurate. Johnson had few difficulties handling the Senate or trumping the nominal majority leader.

. . .

In 1952, Knowland ran on both the Republican and the Democratic ticket to easily win his reelection to the Senate. The same election brought Republican Dwight Eisenhower to the White House and gave the Republicans control of the Senate, elevating Robert Taft to majority leader. In the first months of the 83rd Congress, Taft worked closely with Eisenhower, while Knowland countered the new administration on its foreign policy in Asia. Still, he got along with Taft, who appreciated his gruff personality and principled determination. That spring, however, Taft was diagnosed with cancer and, within weeks, he was too ill to perform the functions of his position. Rather than choose the party whip, Leverett Saltonstall, to replace him, Taft made Knowland the acting majority leader, on the grounds that "nobody can push him around."

Before Taft died in July 1953, the GOP held the Senate majority by a 48-47 margin with one senator, Wayne Morse, listed as an Independent. In November, a Democrat, Thomas Burke, was appointed to fill Taft's seat in the Senate. The balance of power remained 48-47-1, but now the Democratic party possessed the one-member advantage. To make matters even more confusing, a total of nine senators died during the 83rd, and the ratio of Republicans to Democrats shifted several times. Senator Morse, however, promised to vote with the Republicans to organize the Senate. Thus, with Vice President Richard Nixon available to cast a tie-breaking vote, Knowland's "minority" party held onto its "majority" status until the start of the next Congress in 1955. In the meantime, the Republican caucus elected Knowland to be the official majority leader, while the Democratic floor leader, Lyndon Johnson, had already begun to take command of the Senate.

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/People_Leaders_Knowland.htm

[Hosnon]

21. Interesting...thanks. nt

[Hosnon]

22. From Wikipedia regarding the House of Representatives:

I don't trust Wikipedia for absolute answers but it can usually be trusted to steer you in the right direction:

In order to be elected, a candidate must receive a simple majority of those voting (not necessarily a simple majority of the total membership of the House). If no candidate receives the requisite majority, the House repeats the procedure until a Speaker is elected.

Speaker of the United States House of Representatives

I assume the same would apply in the Senate.

The reasoning relies on Wikipedia and assumptions/inferences but points to a plurality being needed to be elected "Majority" Leader, with the Veep breaking a tie.