Question

What do you think about the House’s use of the Committee of the Whole? Is it a prudent efficiency or an unrepresentative maneuver?

Answer 1

it proves a very prudent efficiency

Step-by-step explanation:

The Committee of the Whole requires 100 members for a quorum to be in place, out of which only 25 members of the committee of the whole are required to force a recorded rather than voice vote. the intended use of the committee was to debate bills privately and prevent a recorded vote from being taken. It is normally used to give initial consideration/expedite the hearing of important legislation, which includes bills for raising revenue, and this is because debate over amendment occurs under a special five-minute rule.

Answer 2

The Committee of the Whole only requires 100 members for a quorum, while only 25 members are required to force a recorded rather than voice vote. In the version of the Committee of the Whole that existed in the British House of Commons, the original use of this committee was to debate bills privately and prevent a recorded vote from being taken. It is normally invoked to give initial consideration of important legislation, including bills for raising revenue, and serves to expedite the process since debate over amendment occurs under a special five-minute rule.