When should bills be made avaliable to the public before voting?

UncleBob

UncleBob

CAGiversary!
Feedback
7 (100%)
I was reading this story - I had considered putting it into the health care topic, but decided it needed it's own discussion, outside of the health care debate.

The Senate is expected to vote on a health bill in the weeks to come, representing months of work and stretching to hundreds of pages. And as of now, there is no assurance that members of the public, or even the senators themselves, will be given the chance to read the legislation before a vote.
Click to expand...

Now, I've commented on how stupid it is that our Representatives are willing to vote on something they haven't read (and/or don't understand), but what are your thoughts on making the bills available to the public before voting?
 
never. we, the American people, are far to ignorant to read bills that are in congress. we should trust that our senators have our best interests at heart.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']never. we, the American people, are far to ignorant to read bills that are in congress.[/QUOTE]

It would be 'far TOO' ignorant. Haha, thanks for making your point! :lol:
 
It's pretty awesome that you have to pass exams that to prove you know something about what you paid someone to teach you in school - just so you can hope to get a good job some day. But when it comes to setting laws in motion that effect almost everyone, the people voting on them aren't required to prove they know shit about them.

Then again, we require background checks for almost every low end government/military position, but the people with the real power can have any past, history, or criminal record because they are "elected".
 
Great one troy! Zing! What a treasure you are. An actual military veteran (we know, you had more important things to do) salutes you.

I think a week is reasonable. At the rate information can be digested by the public via the intertubes now, I think that would be plenty of time. I kind of worry that it would make taking lines out of context and using them to scare the shit out of people rampant though. Trying to explain complex legal jargon to the public would be impossible if even one line looked bad and since many single lines buried within subs of subs without context can look awful, I can't imagine that being pretty.

I'm not arguing against it, I think it's a great idea to have a minimum requirement. But it would probably also dumb down legislation. Then again, maybe plain English is what our laws need.

[quote name='thrustbucket']But when it comes to setting laws in motion that effect almost everyone, the people voting on them aren't required to prove they know shit about them.[/quote]
I don't disagree, but a requirement that they fully understand each law and its implications would require that all legislators be actual lawyers. I'm not quite ready for that.
 
Maybe 2 weeks before a vote? Don't want to require too long to be delaying votes too long etc. But there should be some period to give both the congressman and their constituents times to look bills over before there's a vote on them.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Maybe 2 weeks before a vote? Don't want to require too long to be delaying votes too long etc. But there should be some period to give both the congressman and their constituents times to look bills over before there's a vote on them.[/QUOTE]

That makes too much sense.

At the risk of sounding too conspiracy-ish, I honestly think they do not want that. I think much less would get passed if that were to happen (which is maybe a good thing?). I think our elected officials would much rather pass lots of laws without understanding them than risk looking like they never get anything done (harder to get reelected)
 
I know it may defeat the purpose of electing these people in the first place but maybe every now and then we the people can vote for something that would exclusively affect our lives. Maybe I can get some special interests and lobbyists to come by my house and spoil me with some gifts.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']With the way these are written, would most people even understand them anyway?[/QUOTE]

Nope. And like someone said(speedracer?) it would just be used, by people against the bills, to scare people by making shit up. Like they do now anyway, I guess. :p
 
[quote name='speedracer']Great one troy! Zing! What a treasure you are. An actual military veteran (we know, you had more important things to do) salutes you.[/QUOTE]

uh, great job giving yourself a pat on the back?
 
[quote name='jputahraptor']I know it may defeat the purpose of electing these people in the first place but maybe every now and then we the people can vote for something that would exclusively affect our lives. Maybe I can get some special interests and lobbyists to come by my house and spoil me with some gifts.[/QUOTE]
The Californians have shown just how badly direct democracy can go. Their shit is wrecked and direct democracy has a fair bit to do with it.

[quote name='perdition(troy']uh, great job giving yourself a pat on the back?[/QUOTE]
So troy, is the act of one saying one is a veteran a pat on one's back? Is that somehow self congratulatory in an inappropriate manner? I will say that our fair country is worse off because you chose not to serve. That's weird huh, how without knowing your personally or really anything about you, we both know you never chose to serve your country a day in your life. How is it that we both know that? Just plain weird. Anywho, why exactly did you choose not to serve troy?

lol srsly tho, say something funny bout pelosi kthx.

Sorry OP. I can't help myself when the kid with the helmet shows up. perdition "personal responsibility is for other people" troy is one of my guilty pleasures.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='speedracer']The Californians have shown just how badly direct democracy can go. Their shit is wrecked and direct democracy has a fair bit to do with it.


Not sure if your referring to gay marriage or something but if it's the former than that's the will of the people the same way Obama was the will of the people. It would be interesting to go back and looking at the big issues and see if things like Roe V Wade, our current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or other issues represent the majority of today's Americans. And in that case, do we just vote on something once and forever shall it stand or why is gay marriage continually brought up, if it's shot down once shouldn't that be the end of it? Can we challenge things later on if the majority of Americans no longer agree with something? Off-topic I know, abortion and gay marriage and the wars is not something I want to start aruging about but the act of how we reach for or against an issue and then when we put it to rest or bring it up again is something I've not heard much talk on.

I don't want to steer the debate off topic, just curious as to what you were referring to, not that California isn't wrecked in regards to spending and finance in general.
 
Actually, I would love for some way for the general population to take a fair poll (or "vote") on major legislation. Here's the deal though:

1.) It needs to be set up in such a way where the "ballot" cannot be easily rigged/stuffed/hacked.
2.) It needs to be set up so that the results can be viewed by district, so our congressmen/women can see what his/her constituents want.
3.) It needs to be done in such a way that it doesn't cost a lot of taxpayer money. Having paper ballots and public voting booths is out of the question. It's going to have to be something online.
4.) It must be non-binding. Just because 51% of the population votes for BillX, doesn't mean it's going to be voted for.

It's all a pipe dream, I know.

As for making bill available for the public, there are a few things to consider:

A.) How much time is it going to take - and how much time is it going to delay the passage of the bill/resolution? Now, for major legislation, a little time isn't necessarily a bad thing. I wish someone would have taken more time in deciding to give money bags to GM. However, if it's something the government needs to act quickly on (say, passing an emergency bill for extra funding for a huge natural disaster), a week or two delay could be a very bad thing...

B.) As has been said, most Americans (and Congressmen/women) aren't going to understand what's in the bill. It's too wordy. So, we need time for the smart folk to read the bill and tell us what's in it. Then, we need time for the other smart folk to read the bill, read what the first smart folk said and either agree with it or debunk it. For this reason, I very much support putting the initial drafts up for distribution. If the bill is good enough for the House or Senate to be spending time on debating, then it should be good enough for the American people to get to spend some time analyzing/debating it.

What's interesting is that, although many of the people in this thread disagree on many things, I'm seeing people from all sides who think this is a good idea.

I'm sure we can all agree, it would have been nice if the Patriot Act had been submitted for public review before passage.
 
Are there any non-partisan websites out there that lay out bills and house resolutions in layman's terms? Honestly, it's no surprise that politicians don't read them and many don't even know what's in them. Even the most basic legislation is dozens if not hundreds of pages long, filled with jargon, legal language, and legislative nonsense that no one short of the most hardcore political scholars could possibly understand the meaning of. What is the reasoning behind bills being written this way? Is it all procedural, or is there a greater reasoning behind it?
 
[quote name='jputahraptor']...BLAH BLAH Gay Marriage...BLAH BLAH...Will of the people...

I don't want to steer the debate off topic, just curious as to what you were referring to, not that California isn't wrecked in regards to spending and finance in general.[/QUOTE]

Don't get your panties in a bundle. He was referring to the ability of the California electorate to directly vote on nearly any issue to affect them. It's the cause of their finance woes. They vote FOR any spending measure that provides social services they want, and vote AGAINST taxes to pay for the aforementioned spending initiatives.
[quote name='UncleBob']4.) It must be non-binding. Just because 51% of the population votes for BillX, doesn't mean it's going to be voted for.[/QUOTE]

Not crappin' on ya or nuthin', but what the fuck is the point if the measure is non-binding? Why even have the vote?

Oh, and I think it's a bad idea in general, but I'm curious about your particular implementation.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']4.) It must be non-binding. Just because 51% of the population votes for BillX, doesn't mean it's going to be voted for.[/QUOTE]

Not crappin' on ya or nuthin', but what the fuck is the point if the measure is non-binding? Why even have the vote?

Oh, and I think it's a bad idea in general, but I'm curious about your particular implementation.
 
[quote name='speedracer'] So troy, is the act of one saying one is a veteran a pat on one's back? Is that somehow self congratulatory in an inappropriate manner? I will say that our fair country is worse off because you chose not to serve. That's weird huh, how without knowing your personally or really anything about you, we both know you never chose to serve your country a day in your life. How is it that we both know that? Just plain weird. Anywho, why exactly did you choose not to serve troy?[/QUOTE]

No, that act of saying you're a vet isn't a pat on the back. The manner which you said it does. Ya, its crazy weird that the majority of Americans haven't served in the military and I'm in that majority.

I didn't join the military because I made the choice not to. There isn't really much more to it.
 
Having an actual online vote would probably be equivalent to a viewer poll on CNN or Fox or some shit. Useless info to bolster a preexisting view. The only way to make sure they weren't fake would require some kind of registration, which nobody would want to do, and would surely bring out the crazies on the subject of the government collecting your information.
 
We live in a republic, guys. We elect representatives that then vote on each bill. Funny that a libertarians would be the first to suggest blowing up the Constitution just to allow people to vote on each issue. The state of California does it and it doesn't work. People act in self-interest at every turn and it's just as bad as politicians doing it.

Also, who's gonna vote ten times a week? We can't even get people to vote for national elections.

Also, letting each individual vote kills the idea of the Senate. States with large population would rule with liberal zeal and would probably hasten the Second Civil War that all conservatives threaten this country with when liberals return to power.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']As has been said, most Americans (and Congressmen/women) aren't going to understand what's in the bill. It's too wordy. So, we need time for the smart folk to read the bill and tell us what's in it. Then, we need time for the other smart folk to read the bill, read what the first smart folk said and either agree with it or debunk it. For this reason, I very much support putting the initial drafts up for distribution. If the bill is good enough for the House or Senate to be spending time on debating, then it should be good enough for the American people to get to spend some time analyzing/debating it.[/QUOTE]
That would be a great way to do it.

[quote name='jputahraptor']And in that case, do we just vote on something once and forever shall it stand or why is gay marriage continually brought up, if it's shot down once shouldn't that be the end of it? Can we challenge things later on if the majority of Americans no longer agree with something? Off-topic I know, abortion and gay marriage and the wars is not something I want to start aruging about but the act of how we reach for or against an issue and then when we put it to rest or bring it up again is something I've not heard much talk on. I don't want to steer the debate off topic, just curious as to what you were referring to, not that California isn't wrecked in regards to spending and finance in general.[/QUOTE]
Their direct democracy ballot initiative is awful. Much of the trouble they're in is because of ballot measures that have passed. Then there's the bills special interests ram through with media blitzes like you've never seen. The full court media press California experiences around ballot initiative time is unbelievable. Nothing about that system could be described positively.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Having an actual online vote would probably be equivalent to a viewer poll on CNN or Fox or some shit. Useless info to bolster a preexisting view. The only way to make sure they weren't fake would require some kind of registration, which nobody would want to do, and would surely bring out the crazies on the subject of the government collecting your information.[/QUOTE]

The registration process, in theory, could be as simple as registering to vote. You register to vote and you get a card sent to you (just like we get in Illinois already, not sure how other states do it). It can have, say, a 12 digit code. You go online, enter that code with, say, your birth date and last four of your Social Security. Verify the info they have is correct, create a log-in and *bamn*. Probably more complicated than that, but you get the idea.

The problem with online polls is that the questions can be written in such a way that it skews the results.

Example:
Are you happy with the current health care system?
Majority says no! That means we need government-controlled health care!
Never mind the fact that a significant part of those people could be interested in reform without the government taking over.

Are you happy with the way Obama is handling health care reform?
Majority says no! That means no one wants government-controlled health care!
Never mind the fact that if 33% were happy with what he's doing, 33% were against it and 33% wanted him to do more, you'd have 66% who were in favor of some kind of government controlled health care.

Polling isn't really helpful when you read the questions. A "yes" or "no" on the actual legislation would tell you what people thought of the legislation. Which is what's being voted on - not if you're happy with Obama/Health Care Industry.

[quote name='Quillion']Not crappin' on ya or nuthin', but what the fuck is the point if the measure is non-binding? Why even have the vote?[/QUOTE]

This:

[quote name='depascal22']We live in a republic, guys. We elect representatives that then vote on each bill. Funny that a libertarians would be the first to suggest blowing up the Constitution just to allow people to vote on each issue.[/quote]

Thus why the vote should be non-binding. It should be a "feeler" for the pulse of the constituents. As we've seen, town hall meetings can be disrupted and blown out of proportion (for either side), polling can be tainted simply by rephrasing the question... What's wrong with asking the population a simple "Yes" or "No" on Bill HRX?

Heaven forbid our Representatives actually have a clue what the people they represent want. There's a scary thought.

Also, letting each individual vote kills the idea of the Senate. States with large population would rule with liberal zeal and would probably hasten the Second Civil War that all conservatives threaten this country with when liberals return to power.
Click to expand...

It would be nice to see more State turn to the Federal Government and say "No Thanks."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top