I read a pretty persuasive article a while back that was pro anonymous voting in Congress. I can’t find it right now, but the most persuasive arguments I remember were:
Yes, politicians can lie about their votes, but it’s not always a bad thing. For example, some congresspeople were able to vote for anti-segregation bills or other sensible legislation despite their racist, hyper conservative voter base.
The population can’t guarantee that their representative voted the way they say they did, which means if life starts getting bad for the population, by whatever metric, their inability to definitively trust their representative makes it easier to swap out candidates.
There was more to it, but that’s all I can remember right now. Of course, I now realize I could probably test those assertions with a little historical data digging. Doubt I’ll get around to that anytime soon though.
Part of the problem with contrarian takes is that they spend a lot of time telling you not to believe your lying eyes.
Politicians already have methods for “anonymous” voting. We get to see it in the Dem Senate regularly, whenever there’s a vote for closure. One Senate in a safe seat saying no can shield 59 others who didn’t really want the bill to pass.
It doesn’t improve the process. On the contrary, it makes the system that much more corrupt. A handful of Liebermans, Sinemas, and Machins can extort favors from the rest of the body politic to play fall guy.
Meanwhile, money doesn’t flow towards individual candidates, but political action committes which sponsor ideology. Politicians are rewarded for bills failing, regardless of which particular vote was the deciding one.
Whether politicians are lying isn’t the issue. It’s where popular legislation is passing. Anonymity does nothing to incentivize politicians to pass popular legislation.
I suppose those are equally valid points barring further investigation.
I guess my question for you would be, what makes you suspect the Sinemas and Machins of the world are being “fall guys” instead of just being genuine blockers who vote that way to protect their seats in particularly conservative districts?
Constituent: “You said you’d vote to close Gitmo”
Politician: “I did.”
Constituent: “The vote failed 437-1”
Politician: “That one vote was mine”
Constituent: “All 438 of you said that!”
I read a pretty persuasive article a while back that was pro anonymous voting in Congress. I can’t find it right now, but the most persuasive arguments I remember were:
There was more to it, but that’s all I can remember right now. Of course, I now realize I could probably test those assertions with a little historical data digging. Doubt I’ll get around to that anytime soon though.
Part of the problem with contrarian takes is that they spend a lot of time telling you not to believe your lying eyes.
Politicians already have methods for “anonymous” voting. We get to see it in the Dem Senate regularly, whenever there’s a vote for closure. One Senate in a safe seat saying no can shield 59 others who didn’t really want the bill to pass.
It doesn’t improve the process. On the contrary, it makes the system that much more corrupt. A handful of Liebermans, Sinemas, and Machins can extort favors from the rest of the body politic to play fall guy.
Meanwhile, money doesn’t flow towards individual candidates, but political action committes which sponsor ideology. Politicians are rewarded for bills failing, regardless of which particular vote was the deciding one.
Whether politicians are lying isn’t the issue. It’s where popular legislation is passing. Anonymity does nothing to incentivize politicians to pass popular legislation.
I suppose those are equally valid points barring further investigation.
I guess my question for you would be, what makes you suspect the Sinemas and Machins of the world are being “fall guys” instead of just being genuine blockers who vote that way to protect their seats in particularly conservative districts?
They’re granted committee seats by the party leadership in places where they can do the most damage.
Sinema’s a freshman senator with a seat on the appropriations committee. That’s unheard of for Junior senators.
Manchin’s seat on the Energy and Martial Resources committee has given him a voice in pro-coal policy making for decades.
How did they get these positions? Schumer assigned them. He’s endorsing their policy as a result.
Hm. I’ll have to look into this a bit more. Thank you for your perspective!
Gonna be hard for all 438 to win re-election
Easier than you’d think.
I really doubt it. For a enough of them to make a difference.