How does senate voting work

How many people do congressmen and senators represent? Members of the U. House of Representatives each represent a portion of their state known as a Congressional District, which averages , people. Senators however, represent the entire state.

How do the House and Senate chambers differ? In the House of Representatives, the majority party holds significant power to draft chamber rules and schedule bills to reach the floor for debate and voting.

In most cases, House rules will limit debate so that important legislation can be passed during one legislative business day. In the Senate however, the majority has the power to schedule when various bills come to the floor for voting but a single Senator can slow legislation from coming to the floor for a vote.

Since debate in the Senate is not concluded until 60 senators vote for a cloture motion to approve a bill for consideration, the majority must also coordinate with the minority part to set the rules for debate on legislation. Under this system, legislation can be debated for one or two weeks on the Senate floor alone. Why does Congress use the committee system? Congress deals with a broad variety of different policy issues and it is more efficient to have work done at the committee level than on the House or Senate floor.

In addition, this system allows members to gain expertise in specific issue areas they are interested in. Throughout history, committees have been created to address particular issues before Congress. The House has 23 committees while the Senate has a total of 20 committees. When the votes are equally divided, the question is lost. Most votes in the Senate are determined on the voices.

This assessment is based on a knowledge of how senators will vote. The bells are rung for four minutes to enable senators to assemble in the chamber.

The doors are then locked and the chair repeats the question, inviting those voting for the motion to sit to the right of the chair and those voting against the motion to sit to the left. All senators in the chamber must vote except for the President or the Chair of Committees or, in practice, any temporary chair, who may choose not to vote when in the chair.

Other senators have the option of abstaining by not attending the division. Tellers are usually party whips. When all names have been recorded, the tellers and clerks cross-check the results which are then announced by the chair. Lists of senators voting for and against a motion are reproduced in the Journals of the Senate and in Hansard. The procedures for calling, voting in and recording divisions are contained in standing orders 98 to These procedures include the following rules:.

By leave, a group of senators voting against a motion may have their votes recorded, as an alternative to a division. If divisions are held successively, without intervening debate, the bells are rung for one minute for each successive division, rather than the usual four minutes. Although the chair, if aware of the possibility, generally warns senators if a one minute bell is likely, noise in the chamber often prevents senators from receiving the message. Therefore, if the bells ring soon after a division, senators who have left the chamber need to be aware that they may have only one minute to return.

Television monitors in Parliament House display a time signal in the top right hand corner indicating how much time remains for a senator to reach the chamber. A caption also indicates whether the bells are ringing for a quorum or a division. The system of pairing is an unofficial system managed by the party whips to preserve the voting strengths of the parties in the Senate and prevent results by misadventure. Pairing arrangements also apply to Senate vacancies.

Because they are unofficial, pairing arrangements are not recorded in the Journals , but they may be included in the voting lists shown in Hansard if the tellers provide the pairing arrangements to Hansard at the time of the division.

If counting or recording errors or confusion occur which cannot be corrected for example, by the tellers certifying that a pairing error occurred , another division is held. In practice, divisions may also be held again by leave if misadventure prevents a senator reaching the chamber and the result does not reflect the voting strengths of the parties and independents. Misadventure may include mechanical or electronic failures leading to malfunctioning bells or lifts and the senator concerned is usually called upon to explain the misadventure.

If the presiding officer disagrees, another senator can appeal the ruling of the chair. In both and , the Senate used this approach to reduce the number of votes needed to end debate on nominations. The majority leader used two non-debatable motions to bring up the relevant nominations, and then raised a point of order that the vote on cloture is by majority vote. The presiding officer ruled against the point of order, but his ruling was overturned on appeal—which, again, required only a majority in support.

In sum, by following the right steps in a particular parliamentary circumstance, a simple majority of senators can establish a new interpretation of a Senate rule. The Senate could also move to weaken the filibuster without eliminating it entirely. For example, a Senate majority could prevent senators from filibustering the motion used to call up a bill to start known as the motion to proceed. A second option targets the so-called Byrd Rule, a feature of the budget reconciliation process.

These bills have been critical to the enactment of major policy changes including, recently, the Affordable Care Act in and the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in To guard against a majority stuffing a reconciliation measure with non-budgetary provisions, the Byrd Rule limits the contents of the bill and requires 60 votes to set aside. This approach would weaken the filibuster by making it easier for a majority party to squeeze more of its priorities into a reconciliation bill which then only requires a simple majority to pass.

Alternatively, the senator presiding over the chamber or the vice president, if he or she is performing that function could disregard the advice provided to him or her by the parliamentarian, undercutting the efficacy of the Byrd Rule. By winning majorities in both houses of Congress and the White House, Democrats have achieved one necessary condition for filibuster reform: unified party control of Washington. But the filibuster could still survive unified party control.

Senators often speak about their principled support for the filibuster. There would likely need to be a specific measure that majority party senators both agreed upon and cared enough about to make banning the filibuster worth it.

In addition, individual senators may find the filibuster useful to their own personal power and policy goals, as it allows them to take measures hostage with the hopes of securing concessions. For majority party leaders, meanwhile, the need to secure 60 votes to end debate helps them to shift blame to the minority party for inaction on issues that are popular with some, but not all, elements of their own party.

Finally, senators may be concerned about the future; in an era of frequent shifts in control of the chamber, legislators may worry that a rule change now will put them at a disadvantage in the near future. Russell Wheeler explains the contemporary proposals to alter the size and structure of the Supreme Court.

Darrell West explains the different vote-by-mail systems and addresses fears over the political consequences of mail voting and potential for fraud. Should we believe him? Voter Vitals Non-partisan, fact-based explainers on important issues for American voters. Multimedia Videos and podcasts on key election issues.

About Policy