|
| 阅读上一个主题 :: 阅读下一个主题 |
| 作者 |
 不可思议，一些美国国会议员竟违反90%的民意，将购枪背景调查议案在国会投票中否决掉！ |
 |
| 所跟贴 |
你要这么说，凡是多数主张就应成法，那就凡事都用公决来定夺，那国会是干嘛吃的？国会众院都解散了得了， -- 老哈 - (171 Byte) 2013-4-20 周六, 上午5:34 (175 reads) |
若迷
[博客]
[个人文集]
警告次数: 1
性别: 
加入时间: 2008/05/16
文章: 3610
经验值: 164705
|
|
|
作者：若迷 在 驴鸣镇 发贴, 来自 http://www.hjclub.org
How many votes in senate needed to pass a bill?
For an ordinary bill to pass each chamber or house of the US congress, it needs a simple majority of the votes which would be 50% + 1 vote.
In the US House of Representatives, ordinarily there are a total of 435 seated Representatives. 50% of 435 is 217.5. As there are no half votes, the fewest number of votes required for an ordinary bill to pass the House would normally be 218.
However, I must admit that I don't know whether the House currently has any vacancies whether from death, resignation, or a failure to seat someone due to a close election.
In the US Senate, ordinarily there are a total of 100 seated Senators. 50% of 100 is 50. A simple majority is 50% + 1, thus the fewest number of votes required for an ordinary bill to pass the US Senate is 51.
For several months during 2009, Minnesota had only 1 Senator as Candidate Al Franken was not seated due to the close election. Therefore, the US Senate had only 99 seated Senators. 50% of 99 is 49.5 which made a tie vote impossible. Thus, the fewest number of the votes necessary for an ordinary bill to pass the US Senate was 50. During the period of time after which Senator Al Franken was seated, but before Senator Edward Kennedy passed away, the US Senate had 100 Senators. 50% of 100 is 50, thus the fewest number of votes required for an ordinary bill to pass the US Senate was 51. However, since Senator Edward Kennedy passed away, the US Senate currently has only 99 seated Senators. 50% of 99 is 49.5 which makes a tie vote impossible. Thus, the fewest number of the votes necessary for an ordinary bill to pass the US Senate is 50.
Having said this however, the US Senate has the ability to bring things to a standstill with a filibuster. Historically, a filibuster would take the form of a group of Senators agreeing to prevent a bill from passing by preventing it from ever coming up for a vote. They would prevent the vote from taking place by talking about the bill. Strategically, they would not want other Senators to figure out that they were attempting to filibuster because if they lost the floor to someone not opposed to the bill, that person could simply call for the vote to take place. However, if enough Senators have agreed to continue to filibuster, they could prevent the vote from taking place indefinitely by reading from the phone book and yielding the floor only to one another。
I bring this up because the rules of the Senate currently include a more practical variation on the power of the filibuster. Those opposed to a bill coming up for a vote can prevent the vote simply by proposing and debating countless amendments to the bill. This strategy allows them the benefit of a filibuster without the risks associated with being seen as an obstructionist or with the physical and emotional strain of having to read continuously for days on end. The only way to stop the endless proposal and debate of amendments to a particular bill and bring it to an immediate vote is with a successful vote of cloture. For such a vote to be successful, it must be supported by three fifths of the seated Senators which currently would be 60.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_votes_in_senate_needed_to_pass_a_bill
作者：若迷 在 驴鸣镇 发贴, 来自 http://www.hjclub.org |
|
|
| 返回顶端 |
|
 |
| |
|
|
您不能在本论坛发表新主题
您不能在本论坛回复主题
您不能在本论坛编辑自己的文章
您不能在本论坛删除自己的文章
您不能在本论坛发表投票
您不能在这个论坛添加附件
您可以在这个论坛下载文件
|
based on phpbb, All rights reserved.
|
