Talk:Party divisions of United States Congresses

	United States portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is about one (or many) thing(s).

Politics

	Politics portal 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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Time Frame

Since when do congresses last 3 years? Bobklahn (talk) 04:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They don't. —GoldRingChip 14:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bolding

It would be nice for the majority party of each house to be emboldened to make them stand out. I mean to embolden the figure — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.65.114.116 (talk) 19:58, May 1, 2007 (UTC)

Question

Err...

Can anyone explain why the latest congress seems to list 49 senators for both DEM and GOP AND 2 Independents? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.112.228.87 (talk) 02:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's mainly because it's true. There are 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans, and 2 independents (Joe Lieberman, who lost the Democratic primary in Connecticut last year, but still won the general election running as an "Independent Democrat", and Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who decided to run as an independent and won). The independents caucus with the Democrats, however, so many people are under the impression that there are 51 Democrats. --CapitalR 02:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Party labels

I believe that "Jacksonian" should be relabled "Democrats" and colored accordingly. Does anyone have strong opposition to that? Jackson and Martin Van Buren are appropriately labeled Democrats in the Presidential column, and Van Buren served as Jackson's Vice President and tried to carry out his policies. Obviously political parties change over time, but there is no clear break between Jackson and Van Buren, and most historians consider Andrew Jackson the father of the modern Democratic Party.GreekParadise (talk) 17:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency in count

This article needs to be more consistent and clear in how it addresses in-Congress changes. Based on looking at a few from the non-recent past, I think the numbers presented are generally as of the beginning of the Congress, which is probably a good idea. In most cases that should suffice. In any case, where a significant change occurred mid-session, either numerically or a change in control, a footnote can be made, but I think a single set of numbers would be a good idea for each Congress. Jonpin (talk) 08:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is absolutely true. During the 83rd Congress, 9 Senators died, and the majority switched 12 times (see "Senate Convulsions" section) between Republicans and Democrats. Mid-session changes in Senate strength are shown only since 2000, and the scheme used there would be difficult to replicate where there were 12 changes during a session. Edgy4 (talk) 04:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect "party labels"

There are some significant problems with the representations of parties in the table at this article, esp. in the use of "Democratic" and "National Republican" party labels before they were widely used. (They should be replaced by labels like "Adams" and "Jacksonian"...) If there are no objections, I am likely to change these party labels to the less anachronistic versions in the near future. --IJBall (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discrepancies

There are numerous discrepancies between (a) the counts for each party for each congress and the similar counts on the page for each congress; and (b) between either of those sets of figures and the totals for each party for each state added together (even allowing for the fact that the party totals typically change over the lifetime of each congress) Rmallett (talk) 18:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For example this page has the 85th Congress Senate count as 49 (D) and 47 (R). But the Wikipedia page for the 85th Congress has 49 (D), 46 (R), and 1 Vacant at the beginning of the session, and 50 (D), 45 (R), and 1 Vacant at the end of the session. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:2153:5800:BDD9:BA67:B68F:9F00 (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

Merge Political power in the United States over time into Party divisions of United States Congresses: talks about the same topic & general ideas. A Red Cherry (talk) 23:38, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

Merge Divided government in the United States into Party divisions of United States Congresses: talks about the same topic & general ideasA Red Cherry (talk) 23:39, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further inaccuracies introduced into this page

Someone, or some people, whose knowledge of history goes back only about 20 years is repeatedly corrupting the accuracy of this page. First, changes in strength during a session were added, but only for the Senate, and only since 2001. This ignores many, many such changes previously, like the deaths between the 1930 House election and the convening of the 72nd Congress (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1930_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections) and the 1953-1955 Senate session, during which party control changed several times (see https://www.cop.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Senate_Membership_Changes_83.htm). Now a "Trifecta" column has been added, which is again accurate back to about 20 years ago, but just plain wrong before then. In particular, the footnote on the 1953-1955 session says that the Republicans had a "trifecta" after January 20. This is just false, as party control changed several times. The actions of Wayne Morse during that session (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Morse#Re-election_and_independence_from_the_Republican_Party) make it especially complicated. Anyway, the "Trifecta" column is redundant, since it can be calculated from other columns and needlessly widens the table. It would not be so bad if it added useful information, but since it is simplistic and inaccurate, it detracts from the information on the page.

If this is not fixed within the next 6 months, I will simply remove the "Trifecta" column.

Edgy4 (talk) 12:21, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of United States Congresses which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Popular vote vs actual seats gained

I personally find this graph a bit abstruse. What information exactly is it attempting to highlight? After methodical analysis, I gather that a longer ray represents a larger discrepancy between the popular vote for House elections and the percentage of seats won by each party. Is this meant to expose the unfair advantages that systematic gerrymandering engenders? Or is it merely meant to show that no system devised can perfectly reflect the popular vote accurately, consistently, and fairly? I feel an explanatory caption of some sort is warranted. 66.91.36.8 (talk) 08:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Graph lacks a legend. TigerWind (talk) 11:20, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]