3 ms·

> One side says, "We want X." The other side says, "Ok, we'll support X if it also has Y." Repeat that, in this case for a few years, and you have a very large

• jdmichal 11y ago
  So we have two things, X and Y. What happens now is that those get bound together into a single bill, (X, Y), which then gets collectively voted on. Your proposal seems to be to instead maintain them as separate bills, (X) and (Y), which are still collectively voted on? If I understood it correctly, that distinction makes little difference since the line-item veto was introduced. It would provide better conceptual separation and to allow multiple bill titles; that's about it. It would basically be the equivalent of introducing modules or namespaces into legislation.
  • bdamm 11y ago
    Except, obviously, X and Y could have different outcomes.
    • sparky_z 11y ago
      If someone can vote for X and not for Y, then they're being voted on separately, not collectively.
  • Splines 11y ago
    > It would provide better conceptual separation and to allow multiple bill titles Correct, and (IANAP) when laws get looked at at a later time, it's easier to understand what's in them. Like how single responsibility principle can make code audits easier. Also if agreements need to be renewed, you have more composable pieces of law. I am not a lawyer or politician, so all of this is probably unfeasible for other reasons.
  • bryanrasmussen 11y ago
    the distinction does make a difference for the legislative branch, which does not have a line-item veto. Let's assume that X is 'punish pedophiles' and Y is 'allow corporations to dispose of 10% more toxic waste in upstream waters without liability if they own the surrounding land for up to two miles.' Then if a legislator votes against the bill they have voted against punishing pedophiles, that's not going to look too good around election time. This puts more power in the Executive branch, and means essentially you're depending on the Executive's good will not to allow corporations to dispose of 10% more toxic waste.
    • jdmichal 11y ago
      That's entirely missing the point that (X) and (Y) would still be collectively voted. If they weren't collectively voted, then we end up at exactly where we are now. (That is, political negotation will result in (X, Y), not an independent (X) and (Y).)
      • bryanrasmussen 11y ago
        Yes but that's entirely missing the original point that how X and Y are packaged affect the possibilities of negotiation. If you have two separate bills X and Y and X is a thing that lots of people want and Y is a thing that few people want and you are negotiating to get people to support Y your pledge to support X is not going to do much for you because 1. Lots of people are going to support X, X doesn't need you. 2. People who don't support X will be campaigned against for not supporting X. 3. People who support Y will be campaigned against for supporting Y. So, if it were possible to put the highly unpopular Y together with the highly popular X in such a way that in order to support X which you want to do and which everyone wants you to do you also have to support Y the chance of Y getting through has increased by a great deal. Sure there will have to be collective voting on the combined XY and the combined XY will be less popular than X by itself, thus people may now actually have to make deals to support XY but not as great a deal as they would have had to make to support Y by itself ( especially as supporting Y by itself was probably dead in the water) This is what the original comment was complaining about, what my example was meant to highlight and yes, either way will require collective voting and bargaining, but if you can slip Y in with X instead of bargaining on them separately you may be able to achieve your goal of passing Y, otherwise there would be a very real chance that you would not be able to come up with sweet enough deals to do that.