Waldo Jaquith

Waldo–

What if there is a political hot button bill that thoughtful, moderate people on both sides of the aisle find repugnant and believe ought to be killed.

Then imagine that some of the committee members are going to be primaried by the “extremes” of their party. These moderate members are happy to kill the bill so long as their names aren’t attached to a vote. BUT if committee votes are recorded, they’ll feel the need to grandstand so that the vote won’t be used against them in primary brochures.

I don’t know how often this happens, but I can see an argument that in the current, polarized political climate, unrecorded committee votes help moderate members keep out some trash/extremist bills. Not sure this good outweighs the obvious bad–but it seems possible.

Posted by Carrington on 14 January 2007 @ 4pm

Generally, I’m a big fan of open government, but if I had to give a reason for continuing to not record sub-committee votes and not forcing the full committee to vote on something voted down by the sub-committee it would be to keep truly ridiculous bills from getting passed into law.

When Delegates are pressured into introducing bad bills from advocacy groups (from either the right or left) the bills can be sent to die in a sub-committee. On the other hand, if they make it out to a vote in full committee or the floor you have to hope that there are enough people in safe districts (and who haven’t drunk the koolaid) who can vote them down without fear that the advocacy group can put enough money in an opponents coffers to make the next election painful.

Posted by ken on 14 January 2007 @ 4pm

The deliberations surrounding the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787 were held in secret. Few would now argue that was a bad thing.

So were the discussions surrounding HillaryCare and the Cheney-chaired Energy Task Force.

Posted by Judge Smails on 14 January 2007 @ 5pm

“What if there is a political hot button bill that thoughtful, moderate people on both sides of the aisle find repugnant and believe ought to be killed. ”

Because as a citizen and a voter I have the right to know every single politicians voting record. It’s not my problem if an elected official doesn’t have the guts to stand up for what’s right (also see: GOP before November 7, 2006 vs. GOP after November 7, 2006).

“When Delegates are pressured into introducing bad bills from advocacy groups (from either the right or left) the bills can be sent to die in a sub-committee. On the other hand, if they make it out to a vote in full committee or the floor you have to hope that there are enough people in safe districts (and who haven’t drunk the koolaid) who can vote them down without fear that the advocacy group can put enough money in an opponents coffers to make the next election painful. ”

Once again, not my problem if a politician can’t find it in him or herself to do their job CORRECTLY. :)

Posted by Terry Carter on 14 January 2007 @ 6pm

The secret ballot is, as carrington points out, an escape clause that is required because politicians are not the kind of men and women who say what they mean and mean what they say.

While votes to create law should be open, procedural votes to kill preliminary actions need not be. No one really wants to see that kind of sausage being made, nor is the state served by undue deliberations on fringe issues.

Re: hillery-care and energy TF. Those were just discussions, not binding policy. THe proper place for sunlight is when the govt, acting in its official capacity, creates binding policy or law.

Most of my work is government and believe me, I am doing you a favor by holding my meetings in private.

Posted by Roci on 16 January 2007 @ 2pm

While votes to create law should be open, procedural votes to kill preliminary actions need not be. No one really wants to see that kind of sausage being made, nor is the state served by undue deliberations on fringe issues.

Do you believe that 30% of all legislation in the House of Delegates — the percentage killed in subcommittee — consists of “fringe issues”? Do you believe that this process is not likely to be abused, or has not been abused so far?

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 16 January 2007 @ 2pm

Do you believe that this process is not likely to be abused, or has not been abused so far?

I believe that there is no process proposed by man that men cannot abuse. I also beleive that after 200+ years of creating laws in virginia, we should have enough by now. I absolutely believe that 70-90% of proposed laws should not get to the laserprinter a second time.

The weakness in the system is that all you need to propose a law is to win an election. You do not need to be qualified, have ever read the constitution (state or federal) or have the best interests of Virginia residents at heart. Many voting districts seem to actually seek people who are particularly unqualified.

what possible firewall could you create to thwart the worst abuses and yet continue the neccessary activities of government?

Posted by Roci on 16 January 2007 @ 3pm

I am not familiar with Del. Ken Plum’s bill. I will have to look into it. Nonetheless, I am sad to see comments in favor of secret votes by members of our General Assembly. Pathetic.

I wish I could say I cannot believe I am seeing these comments, but I do. Our system of government is getting increasingly messy. I think the problem is that we expect far too much from it. As some the comments themselves suggest, we all have something we want from our leaders. They may be stupid things, but our leaders fear our rejection.

For democracy to work, we have to know where our leaders stand. Their discussions can be secret, but the votes of our leaders have to be public. Otherwise, how do we know whether the guy we voted for is doing what we want?

I have a post on my own blog that addresses the effect of organized political constituencies. You may find it interesting.
http://citizentom.com/2007/01/13/why-conservatives-lose-the-organized-political-constituency/

Posted by Citizen Tom on 16 January 2007 @ 5pm

The weakness in the system is that all you need to propose a law is to win an election. You do not need to be qualified, have ever read the constitution (state or federal) or have the best interests of Virginia residents at heart.

[...]

what possible firewall could you create to thwart the worst abuses and yet continue the neccessary activities of government?

You’ve already answered your own question: Make sure that the voters are capable of finding out how their representatives are voting. Elected officials are accountable at the ballot box. If we voters are not permitted to know how our representatives have voted, we cannot possibly hold them accountable.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 16 January 2007 @ 6pm

I see a distinction between floor votes and preliminary activities, staff work and committee work.

I agree with you on the floor votes. I have no interest in the preliminary work to get it that far.

I am not hard on this point. I can foresee that the technology already exists to make more of this visible to the electorate than is currently being done. I also don’t expect that there is any significant harm from over-visibility in the process.

Posted by Roci on 17 January 2007 @ 10am