Is this flipping?

This is the bill that replaced earlier Democratic bill HB1876, passed out of committee, then killed in full House. Shortly thereafter, a very similar bill (this one), down to most of the same words was introduced. See table at Raising Kaine that shows changes of votes between both bills. Also referenced Here.

Comment on Richmond Sunlight (for links in the comment; Daily Whackjob and Raising Kaine)

The logic being, it’s not a good bill unless a Republic’s name is on it.

Posted by Mark Brooks on 31 January 2007 @ 10pm

Waldo,

AFAIK, floor flipping is a useful tactic for a Delegate to get an opportunity to “vote against” a bill which he’s either promised his consituents he would oppose, or to otherwise bring a bill to the “light” of a full Assembly vote that he does not support (i.e., to tar his opponents in later campaigning)

Sometimes our Assembly’s procedures seem somewhat arcane, but I think we’ve got 400 years that essentially prove that we’re on roughly the right track. :)

Regards,
Brian

Posted by Brian L. on 1 February 2007 @ 7am

Well, I have to admit, that is logical. And I think that there may be kinder explanations, too. Maybe I’m being overly idealistic here, but I could see myself sitting on a committee and thinking “I oppose this bill, but I think that my constituents, the majority of Virginians, and the majority of the General Assembly would favor it, and I don’t think it would cause harm, so I’m going to let this bill go onto the floor, where I will vote against it.”

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 1 February 2007 @ 10am

It’s stupid to spend a second promoting something that you don’t want to pass, even if the promoting makes constituents happy. My guess is there is a lot of stupid stuff a GA member thinks he/she has to do, though.

Posted by saywhat on 1 February 2007 @ 11am

Waldo,

I’m sure that your line of thought is most likely the rationale behind the existence of such a parliamentary sleight-of-hand—and keep in mind, what we’re discussing is merely a procedural tool, not some sinister conspiracy. We’ve inherited quite a bit of this kind of parliamentary procedure from our forefathers over the 400 years that the Commonwealth has been around. As a result, I’m not so sure we should be rushing to change things which were, for the most part, put in place for very specific purposes, at least without giving our Delegates the time to calmly discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each seemingly-arcane rule amongst themselves.

That reminds me, I meant to put together a detailed argument in favour of closed committee votes as a response to your challenge from some time ago, but unfortunately haven’t had enough time to get around to it yet. If I do get a chance to put it together, I’ll be sure you know about it! :)

Regards,
Brian

Posted by Brian L. on 1 February 2007 @ 3pm

So nobody knows whether my example constitutes floor flipping?

Posted by Mark Brooks on 2 February 2007 @ 1am

@Mark: I think your example is a different phenomenon, but it could involve floor-flipping if that first bill was supported in committee and rejected in full House by the same person.

Posted by Tim McCormack on 2 February 2007 @ 12pm