Talk:Seymour Stedman

Coalition?
I wanted to check this using Search Inside, but it seems I can't do that for B&I any longer either on Amazon or on Google Books. I do very explicitly remember someone (I don't remember who) saying that, after the 1918 Congressional elections, the House had a greater number of Socialists and Republicans combined than it did Democrats. The phrasing was very clear that there was not a Socialist majority (there would be at other times) and also seemed pretty clear that the Democrats were still the largest party (otherwise it would have been more Socialists than Democrats, but fewer Socialists than Democrats and Republicans combined). From that I always assumed that meant the Republicans supported the Socialists in a coalition arrangement.

It does occur to me that, if I'm remembering correctly, there are other possibilities. Stedman couldn't be a "minority speaker" with more Democrats than Socialists; the Republicans would have had to lend him some support to get him the gavel. Of course, that doesn't mean they were actually working side by side with the Socialists. They could have supported Stedman as Speaker but still considered themselves an opposition party. Of course, if they did, Stedman's position would be weak indeed, and he never seemed to want for confidence that he'd get his way on just about any vote.

So what should we do? Continue referring to him as a coalition speaker, or quietly remove that word and hope no one notices the vagueness? Turtle Fan (talk) 00:57, May 22, 2017 (UTC)