Page 1
Page 1
Started By
Message
locked post

Theoretical Topic: Discreet voting

Posted on 8/21/20 at 1:34 am
Posted by BornKjun
New Orleans
Member since Apr 2008
954 posts
Posted on 8/21/20 at 1:34 am
What if the Senate had discreet voting? No one would know for sure how any of the Senators actually voted.

Would more Senators vote as individuals and less as partisans?

Would this be a good thing?




Note: I don't think there's much benefit for discreet voting in the House. One vote almost never determines an outcome unlike in the Senate when it happens quite a bit. Plus, Senators work more closely with one another so discreet voting could potentially make it a little more functional. I say this as someone who likes built-in gridlock. A lot of Senators were in the House so most would have a voting record history to consider.

This post was edited on 8/21/20 at 2:26 am
Posted by jts1207
Member since Apr 2018
927 posts
Posted on 8/21/20 at 1:37 am to
Hell no


0 Accountability
This post was edited on 8/21/20 at 1:38 am
Posted by auggie
Opelika, Alabama
Member since Aug 2013
28021 posts
Posted on 8/21/20 at 1:40 am to
However, the lobbyists wouldn't know how they voted either, and that might be a good thing.
Posted by BornKjun
New Orleans
Member since Apr 2008
954 posts
Posted on 8/21/20 at 1:56 am to
quote:

0 Accountability


Not totally true.

A primary challenger can make a unpopular bill passed by the Senate a major campaign issue.

It would be on the incumbent to defend themselves with circumstantial evidence that they don't agree the unpopular bill and vow to try to overturn it.

Further, if a Republican is a "closet" Democrat (RINO, etc) then real Republicans can endorse primary challengers, etc.

A president like Trump can label them a "phony", for example.

And more than a single individual, the entire body as a whole can be held accountable. Ultimately, the President is the main individual held accountable due to veto power.

If you don't like what the Senate has done and the President didn't veto: campaign against the president.
Posted by BornKjun
New Orleans
Member since Apr 2008
954 posts
Posted on 8/21/20 at 2:05 am to
quote:

However, the lobbyists wouldn't know how they voted either, and that might be a good thing


This is one of the things I thought about.

Other things:


No more bills would be written for the sole purpose of political grandstanding.


Would some of the politically difficult issues actually be voted on at times? Social Security reform for example?

Posted by Robin Masters
Birmingham
Member since Jul 2010
29840 posts
Posted on 8/21/20 at 2:10 am to
It’s worth a shot. Not like 99.9% of people even consider voting records when choosing a candidate. It could eliminate lobby influence to a degree.
Posted by awestruck
Member since Jan 2015
10950 posts
Posted on 8/21/20 at 2:16 am to
quote:

It could eliminate lobby influence to a degree.
As would requiring a big 'L' tattooed across the forehead of every lobbyist.


Imagine the conversation: Oh, you're a lobbyist? For who? F'you....

eta: (tattooed )
This post was edited on 8/21/20 at 2:18 am
Posted by BornKjun
New Orleans
Member since Apr 2008
954 posts
Posted on 8/21/20 at 2:17 am to
quote:

It’s worth a shot. Not like 99.9% of people even consider voting records when choosing a candidate. It could eliminate lobby influence to a degree.


Really, the main thing I'm thinking is that "activists" would lose a little bit of influence/power.

I don't like political activists very much. I like regular folk. Perhaps discreet voting might make Senators more like regular folk and less like someone worried about activists attacking them.

Senators come and go. Activists always hover around D.C.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram