Humanities desk
< January 21	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 23 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 22

Lame duck length

Is the circa 76.5 to 82.5 days between POTUS election night and inauguration long, short or typical by fixed date presidential system standards? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:10, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In France, it is about 10 days (French presidential inauguration), it was one week in 2017 and two weeks in 2022, for instance. --Wrongfilter (talk) 05:10, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In Brazil, general elections (including the first round of the presidential election) are held in the first week of October, while inauguration day is 1 January. If Lula had already been elected in the first round on 2 October 2022, the inauguration would have taken place 91 days after his election. The need for a runoff election shortened this by four weeks. --Lambiam 08:36, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The 2014 Indonesian presidential election took place on 9 July 2014, while the president-elect was inaugurated on 20 October 2014, 103 days later. The 2019 Indonesian general election, including the presidential election, was held on 17 April 2019; the re-inauguration of the president took place on 20 October 2019, 217 days later (more than seven months). --Lambiam 08:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The delay used to be much longer in the U.S., with the inauguration not taking place until March 4th. Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed an amendment to change that after having been frustrated by the long waiting time before he could get his policies implemented following his decisive win in the 1932 United States presidential election.[1] Xuxl (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't quite fit the timeline. FDR was inaugurated March 4 1933, but the 20th Amendment was passed by Congress on March 2, 1932 and ratified by the states January 22, 1933. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's because of the wording, "Section 5. Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article." So even if it had been ratified prior to January 20, it still wouldn't have taken effect until October 15. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested in your terminology. Lame duck (politics) refers to an outgoing incumbent, not to an incoming electee. For example, for the entirety of a US president's second and final 4-year term, they're considered a lame duck because it's known with constitutional certainty that their time in office is drawing to a close, up to 4 years before it actually draws to a close. They don't become a lame duck only on election day when their successor is elected. They become a lame duck on the previous election day, when they themselves were elected for the second and final time. Perhaps you had this mind, but it wasn't clear. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:11, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As we define the term, it refers to an elected official whose successor has already been elected or will be soon. Can we say that an event bound to happen in four years' time will happen "soon"? --Lambiam 18:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is an angels-on-pinheads question. I'll give you another example. The Australian Constitution provides that a parliament continues for a maximum three years after it first meets, but it can be ended sooner. In our history, only one parliament has ever gone the full three years (1910-13). All the others were ended early, in strict constitutional terms. But commentators only talk of "early elections" when it's significantly early, not just a week or two early. Except, nobody has ever defined where the dividing line is, and that has often been the stuff of political argy-bargy, the opposition demanding the prime minister justify why he's called an "early election" and the PM saying it's not really early, it's still in the ballpark. That sort of thing. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC) [reply]

That became true in the 1950s when term limits were imposed on the presidency. Where the term used to be used most often was when congressmen who had lost their elections would continue to work on legislation until their terms expired. We had that situation this past election, when the Democrats continued work on last-minute legislation before the House became Republican. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

4.2 years left is a lot less powerless than 0.2. In the modern era it's very hard to override a president's veto of a budget. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It also depends on the makeup of the House and Senate. Obama lost his congressional majority, and so did Trump. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

True true. Then we get government shutdowns or default crises till one side caves (amazingly not always (yet?)). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When have Democrats ever shut down the federal government or threatened a debt ceiling default?? AnonMoos (talk) 01:54, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Never? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SMW used "one side", which admits a one-sided meaning. --Lambiam 11:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's a list at Government shutdowns in the United States, at several occurred when both houses of Congress were under control of the Democratic Party, and one 1980 United States federal government shutdown, occurred when they had control of both houses AND the Presidency. It has happened under just about any permutation of party control of the Senate, House, and Presidency you can think of. --Jayron 32 13:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]