The party of "No"

[ManagingPrime 0]

Last night I was having the same discussion with a friend that we've been having for a decade now, the need for revolution in the united states.

I don't know why, but a term from a previous thread in the SC popped into my head "the party of no..".

The question was put forth, what if every senator and congresspersons default vote was no?

What if they were required to read ALL bills they vote on, without exception? Beyond that, they must take and pass a proficiency test on the bill with a passing score.

They must vote on X % of all bills that come to the floor and their default vote is required to be NO with the exception of when a majority of constituents favor the legislation...and even then they retain the right to vote no.

The two main obstacles I see in this system is creating the proficiency test and creating a secure system where constituents can "vote" on proposed legislation.

If you are so inclined, please poke holes in this system with the assumption that the proficiency testing and constituent feedback systems are rock solid.

[sfzombie 3]

i'll go with your first line, we need a revolution

http://kitswv.com

[promise5 17]

Very interesting thought. I would like to hear from the lawyers on here on what they see as problems legally in this.
Other then it would never get passed, because then everyone could be held accountable.

No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible.
Believe me I tried.

[NWFlyer 2]

Quote

They must vote on X % of all bills that come to the floor and their default vote is required to be NO with the exception of when a majority of constituents favor the legislation...and even then they retain the right to vote no.

Likely outcome on the first part: even fewer bills would make it out of committee.

Likely outcome on the second part: each party can create polls of its constituents that will get them exactly the answer they want (either that a majority support it or a majority don't support it).

I guess I'm not seeing which of the myriad problems with our legislative bodies that this solves.

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[ManagingPrime 0]

Quote

i'll go with your first line, we need a revolution

That's a start. Now assuming having the french dust off the old guillotines and lending them to us is not an option, where do we go from there?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

What if they were required to read ALL bills they vote on, without exception? Beyond that, they must take and pass a proficiency test on the bill with a passing score.

They must vote on X % of all bills that come to the floor and their default vote is required to be NO with the exception of when a majority of constituents favor the legislation...and even then they retain the right to vote no.

It all begs the question of what problem are you trying to solve, and then do your proposals actually accomplish any tangible gains. The clear result will be a reduction in velocity (completed work units). Some are all in favor of anything that slows down government, but it's as simplistic as libertarianism or "term limits will make legislators more responsive" (reality has proven it to be quite the other way).

If a Senator's staffer reads a bill and vets it for the boss, is that really a problem? Do you test that person instead? Who the hell creates and administers these tests, and do they updated for amendments, or does everyone get tested on the draft coming out of subcommittee? Does the Senator get a retest the next day, or is the first testing run it, and whoever passes becomes the voting pool? Minimum quorum in order to proceed?

Put it this way...if they're too busy to read the bills now, how will them spending half their time taking tests proving they read their bills going to improve matters?

As for the second portion - the Member can only vote yes if their constituents favor it - all sorts of implementation problems around how to announce, how to handle secrets, how long to give, and minimum vote requirements. I suspect the end result is that it would be extremely difficult to pass legislation favored by well organized interest groups (business, labor, AARP, NRA, taxpayers, teachers....) Again, just squashing velocity and effectively letting a small minority do it. At the heart of the problem is that your Members represent you, but are not your proxy voter. Sometimes they should be making unpopular decisions because the country needs it. At the very least, they'll be making some votes you may not agree with.

[CygnusX-1 42]

The biggest problem with that is that nothing would get done in government.

First of all, they are too lazy to do it. Secondly bill are so big and long that it would take weeks to months just to read them - let alone understand them. Today's government has just become too big and complicated for everyone or any one person to completely understand everything.

I am not commenting on whether this is a good or bad thing. I'm just stating a problem with your proposal with the way government operates today.

[BigMikeH77 0]

I think that the problem with a default vote of "nay" is, in part, that it would continue to foster the current do-nothing environment in congress. It would be up to the affirmative group - wether that be a bipartisan committee, an individual congressperson, or whomever, to finagle enough support so that a given bill would be sure to pass. That is pretty much how it is now, except that the votes of those who are absent count toward neither the yea's or nay's. If one party decides to stonewall another and impede all progress whatsoever, they simply don;t show up for work. Right now, the way things are, an opposing side must take an active part in their political subversion. A default vote of "no" will make everyone in congress lazier than they already are, in my opinion.

[ManagingPrime 0]

Quote

The biggest problem with that is that nothing would get done in government.

To a degree that's the idea. I don't think congress should not pass laws, but I think the ones that do pass should be receive a great deal of consideration by not only the representatives, but the constituents as well.

Quote

First of all, they are too lazy to do it. Secondly bill are so big and long that it would take weeks to months just to read them - let alone understand them. Today's government has just become too big and complicated for everyone or any one person to completely understand everything.

If they are too lazy to do it then they need to vacate their post. That's where the requirement comes in. Secondly, I would say that if we have bills that are too long and complicated to read and understand we don't need those bills becoming laws.

Quote

I am not commenting on whether this is a good or bad thing. I'm just stating a problem with your proposal with the way government operates today.

The underlying idea is a radical departure from how the government operates today.

[ryoder 1,394]

Quote

If they are too lazy to do it then they need to vacate their post. That's where the requirement comes in. Secondly, I would say that if we have bills that are too long and complicated to read and understand we don't need those bills becoming laws.

+10!!!

And another thing I'd like to add: Every congressman/senator should be required to file their own income taxes with only a pencil and paper. THEN, we would see the convoluted tax code simplified.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

I would like to hear from the lawyers on here on what they see as problems legally in this.

In theory, there are no problems legally with it, since it would be done by Constitutional amendment, and the Constitution is always highest law in the land.

[ManagingPrime 0]

Quote

Likely outcome on the second part: each party can create polls of its constituents that will get them exactly the answer they want (either that a majority support it or a majority don't support it).

That's two problems.

1. You imply our elected officials would like to disenfranchise their constituents from participating in the political process. I don't disagree that some do and would look for ways to game the system. That's a problem for sure.

2. I presumed in the OP that a system of communication between constituents and officials would be crafted in such a way that is applied across the board and unable to be gamed. A difficult task for sure, but I don't think it's impossible.

What I see potential for is a system that holds our elected officials accountable. The system would allow for more transparency. For example. Say in a two year term 100 votes come up (completely random number) and the representative only votes 50 times when the average is 80. The representative tested at a very low proficiency level (say 70% when the average is 90%) and in 50% of the votes they did participate in they went against the wishes of the majority of their constituents.

That "report card", if you will, is simple enough for any voter to understand and I think it would be pretty damning.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Likely outcome on the second part: each party can create polls of its constituents that will get them exactly the answer they want (either that a majority support it or a majority don't support it).

That's two problems.

1. You imply our elected officials would like to disenfranchise their constituents from participating in the political process. I don't disagree that some do and would look for ways to game the system. That's a problem for sure.

2. I presumed in the OP that a system of communication between constituents and officials would be crafted in such a way that is applied across the board and unable to be gamed. A difficult task for sure, but I don't think it's impossible.

What I see potential for is a system that holds our elected officials accountable. The system would allow for more transparency. For example. Say in a two year term 100 votes come up (completely random number) and the representative only votes 50 times when the average is 80. The representative tested at a very low proficiency level (say 70% when the average is 90%) and in 50% of the votes they did participate in they went against the wishes of the majority of their constituents.

That "report card", if you will, is simple enough for any voter to understand and I think it would be pretty damning.

Just so I understand, what (under your proposed new Constitutional amendment) would be the penalty for being a slacker per that definition? Automatic expulsion from office? Automatic suspension from office pending some opportunity for rehabilitation? Impeachment and trial? Disqualification from running for re-election or election to other Congressional office? Or just public outing, so the public could be on notice and vote accordingly at reelection time?

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

What if they were required to read ALL bills they vote on, without exception? Beyond that, they must take and pass a proficiency test on the bill with a passing score.

They must vote on X % of all bills that come to the floor and their default vote is required to be NO with the exception of when a majority of constituents favor the legislation...and even then they retain the right to vote no.

Why do they need to read the bills if they have to vote with public opinion most of the time anyway?

A) Seems kinda pointless, B) Joe Public don't read no bills and C) who's paying for the endless public voting to find out what their constituents (read: everyone) thinks about every single bill that's voted upon?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[ManagingPrime 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Likely outcome on the second part: each party can create polls of its constituents that will get them exactly the answer they want (either that a majority support it or a majority don't support it).

That's two problems.

1. You imply our elected officials would like to disenfranchise their constituents from participating in the political process. I don't disagree that some do and would look for ways to game the system. That's a problem for sure.

2. I presumed in the OP that a system of communication between constituents and officials would be crafted in such a way that is applied across the board and unable to be gamed. A difficult task for sure, but I don't think it's impossible.

What I see potential for is a system that holds our elected officials accountable. The system would allow for more transparency. For example. Say in a two year term 100 votes come up (completely random number) and the representative only votes 50 times when the average is 80. The representative tested at a very low proficiency level (say 70% when the average is 90%) and in 50% of the votes they did participate in they went against the wishes of the majority of their constituents.

That "report card", if you will, is simple enough for any voter to understand and I think it would be pretty damning.

Just so I understand, what (under your proposed new Constitutional amendment) would be the penalty for being a slacker per that definition? Automatic expulsion from office? Automatic suspension from office pending some opportunity for rehabilitation? Impeachment and trial? Disqualification from running for re-election or election to other Congressional office? Or just public outing, so the public could be on notice and vote accordingly at reelection time?

I'm still debating that part. Obviously, suspension from office or expulsion from office could be very harmful to our system of law making.

Disqualification from running for re-election is not a bad idea in my mind, perhaps for some preset time 6 years...or maybe life.

I've entertained the idea of alternates. I've also thought the retirement benefits that representatives receive is too generous, yet I do understand the reasoning behind them. I think they should only receive those benefits for the length of a standard term after leaving office.

Perhaps a mix of removal from office and loss of benefits or disqualification and a loss of benefits....I honestly can't say what I think would be best.

As far as "public outing" goes, I think the report card should be as near real-time as possible and easily available to the public.

[ManagingPrime 0]

Quote

Quote

What if they were required to read ALL bills they vote on, without exception? Beyond that, they must take and pass a proficiency test on the bill with a passing score.

They must vote on X % of all bills that come to the floor and their default vote is required to be NO with the exception of when a majority of constituents favor the legislation...and even then they retain the right to vote no.

Why do they need to read the bills if they have to vote with public opinion most of the time anyway?

A) Seems kinda pointless, B) Joe Public don't read no bills and C) who's paying for the endless public voting to find out what their constituents (read: everyone) thinks about every single bill that's voted upon?

There is no requirement to vote with public opinion. They can vote against public opinion 100% of the time, but when re-election comes around they are going to have some explaining to do.

There's only 3 requirements:
1. The reading of all bills voted on and demonstrated proficiency.
2. Participation in the vote X percent of the time.
3. A default vote of No, unless the majority of constituents favor the bill...end even then they have the right to "veto" the constituents wishes.

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

There is no requirement to vote with public opinion. They can vote against public opinion 100% of the time, but when re-election comes around they are going to have some explaining to do.

Ok...

So could you re-write your original proposal so it doesn't say the opposite of what you just said?

Or alternatively, just clarify point 3. What does a default vote of NO actually mean if they can vote however they want? How is it a default? What 'requirement' are you trying to propose?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[ManagingPrime 0]

When i get on a laptop I'll edit to clarify the op.

They don't get to vote any way they want. Lets use the hundred votes in a term example. If they are required to vote at least 80% of the time that leaves 20 votes they can abstain from. If the rep is 100% against a no vote and there is no public support for a yes vote they can abstain. If they choose to vote amd there is not a majority of public support they must vote no, by default. If there is public support they have the choice to vote yes or no.

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

They don't get to vote any way they want. Lets use the hundred votes in a term example. If they are required to vote at least 80% of the time that leaves 20 votes they can abstain from. If the rep is 100% against a no vote and there is no public support for a yes vote they can abstain. If they choose to vote amd there is not a majority of public support they must vote no, by default. If there is public support they have the choice to vote yes or no.

Ok, so there is a requirement to vote with public opinion, then there isn't, now there is again. I'm definitely going to have to ask you to re-write your OP so it says what you actually mean (and for the love of god don't use the word 'default' anywhere in it), 'cos right now it's all over the place.

In the meantime, as far as I can tell, my post still stands:

Why do they need to read the bills if they have to vote with public opinion most of the time anyway?

A) Seems kinda pointless, B) Joe Public don't read no bills and C) who's paying for the endless public voting to find out what their constituents (read: everyone) thinks about every single bill that's voted upon?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[ManagingPrime 0]

Quote

They must vote on X % of all bills that come to the floor and their default vote is required to be NO with the exception of when a majority of constituents favor the legislation...and even then they retain the right to vote no. 

Op states fairly clearly they retain the right to vote against constituents desire for a yes vote.... moving on from that.

In regards to the voting system, I'd imagine the best system would be some kind of verified online vote. Obviously, a digital divide still exists so I would imagine there would be publicly available computers in government offices available.

I'm not proposing a direct democracy model, but I guess I'm tipping my hat to the idea to some degree.

Hopefully, I've made the general idea clear so that some real world examples can be run though it to find any big holes in the idea.

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

Op states fairly clearly they retain the right to vote against constituents desire for a yes vote.... moving on from that.

But that's not the bit that you flatly contradicted yourself on later.

So, my point would still be that it seems completely pointless to require them to read bills that they are not free to vote on. Only requiring them to read bills that their constituents have voted 'yes' to would save a lot of government time there.

Next, my point would still be that joe Public don't read no bills. If it isn't acceptable for politicians to vote when they don't know what they're voting for why is it acceptable for the public to do so?

Third, voter turn out is going to be miniscule. The idea that you'll be any closer to getting what the majority of the public wants on any particular issue is tenuous at best.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Hopefully, I've made the general idea clear so that some real world examples can be run though it to find any big holes in the idea.

the real world says that your proposals are unworkable, never mind the philosophical failures I see in them. These are black hole sized holes and they have been pointed out, without a reply from you.

That it doesn't solve any problems is the biggest failure.

The urge to solve the status quo leads to a lot of lousy solutions, with the premise that SOMETHING has to be done. Drug testing welfare recipients is a great one. Nearly every gun control proposal. Term limits. All simplistic, all failing to look at even the obvious second order consequences.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Third, voter turn out is going to be miniscule. The idea that you'll be any closer to getting what the majority of the public wants on any particular issue is tenuous at best.

I could be ok with that. Like with low voter turnout, you're interested in the votes of people who are actually interested in the topic, far more than the votes of people who were forced to do it.

But the likely result is a no vote - when voters are in doubt, they vote no. And it's easy for an interest group to round up the troops to vote no, particularly in a schema that then forces their Member to vote no as well.

[ManagingPrime 0]

Quote

Quote

Hopefully, I've made the general idea clear so that some real world examples can be run though it to find any big holes in the idea.

the real world says that your proposals are unworkable, never mind the philosophical failures I see in them. These are black hole sized holes and they have been pointed out, without a reply from you.

That it doesn't solve any problems is the biggest failure.

The urge to solve the status quo leads to a lot of lousy solutions, with the premise that SOMETHING has to be done. Drug testing welfare recipients is a great one. Nearly every gun control proposal. Term limits. All simplistic, all failing to look at even the obvious second order consequences.

The problem's I see, maybe no one else see's them as a problem:
1. Many legislators don't read the bills they vote on.
2. Many legislators (I'm thinking career politicians) no longer represent the best interests of their constituents.
3. Many laws have been passed without constituent knowledge and or approval.
4. Lobbyists have a great deal of influence on the law making process. Instead of them making backroom deals and corrupting political leaders, they can come to "the people" and lobby for any new laws they feel are needed.
5. I don't think we are a nation of the people, by the people and for the people. Somewhere along the way we just became the governed.
6. Many constituents recognize all of the above and feel disenfranchised from the political process.

Technology has made it possible to share information near instantly. Perhaps, it's time to use that technology to re-engage voters, but keep "the unwashed, uneducated mob" in check with a default no...we are a republic after all.

Maybe it won't solve any problems, but I think it will give the people a bit more ownership of laws that are passed.

Sure, we can run with the status quo....it's been working sooooo well. I don't feel this was a nation built on the principal of following the status quo.

Please don't dodge this question, because I'm very interested in your input. Can you please provide examples of how you think the proposal would be unworkable and provide examples of the philosophical failures? I'm very interested in your observations, but I can't read your mind.

I thought I found a whole in the idea last night. I wondered, what about congresses ability to declare war? Should we really leave that up to popular opinion? My friend countered, "hell yes. If the government is asking me lay my life on the line or to send my child off to possibly die, we should have a say."... I can't really disagree.

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

Like with low voter turnout, you're interested in the votes of people who are actually interested in the topic,

I disagree. You're getting the votes of people who can be mobilised. Lobby groups' paradise.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?