4 ms·

The governor is democratically elected too, so they also represent the voice of the people. They would presumably be predisposed to picking the part(s) of the b

The governor is democratically elected too, so they also represent the voice of the people. They would presumably be predisposed to picking the part(s) of the bill that the majority actually wants, i.e. the tax cut. Not being a fan of progressive taxation, I don't see your example as a bad outcome. If they want to raise taxes on some, pass it without the misdirection/"sweeteners" provided by tax cuts for others. That's not to say I'm a supporter of line-item veto overall. Though note that like all vetoes it can be overridden with a larger majority. So you're always only criticizing it on the basis of a slim majority not getting their way.

CameronNemo 7y ago
The governor is a predominantly executive (not legislative) branch, and people know that when they elect a governor. What if a sysadmin could deploy half the API endpoints in a piece of software? Seems like a bad idea, right? So called sweeteners are often necessary to create good policy. Often a policy will be overall good for a population but slightly bad for a large group of people (e.g. free trade). There needs to be a way to compensate those negatively affected (e.g. through reeducation programs). If a governor can selectively pass free trade but leave out the part of the deal that made it palatable, they completely change the law and screw over tons of people. Oh, and progressive taxation is a great way to eat the rich. Fuck the state and fuck capital, we will destroy anything that stands in the way of democracy.
jml7c5 7y ago
> The governor is democratically elected too, so they also represent the voice of the people. They would presumably be predisposed to picking the part(s) of the bill that the majority actually wants, i.e. the tax cut. This just means that the legislature either won't pass the bill, or will pass a convoluted version that can't be line-item vetoed. >So you're always only criticizing it on the basis of a slim majority not getting their way. Presume that there is an election. Party A takes control of the governorship with 50.1% of the vote. Party B wins 65% of the seats in the legislature. The executive has the power to line-item veto any bill, and Party B cannot overrule the veto (presuming 2/3 majority is required), despite the slim majority Party A won the governorship by.
- unishark 7y ago
  > Party A takes control of the governorship with 50.1% of the vote. Party B wins 65% of the seats in the legislature. The implication being that the will of 65% of the electorate's is stymied by a weaker 50.1% of the electorate? You can't actually conclude that since roughly 15 percent appear to have voted both ways, making their will in this conflict ambiguous. Perhaps they support the gov they voted for so there's actually only a minority of the public who agrees with the legislature and their law. I say "roughly" because gimmicks such as gerrymandering, but these would not affect the governor vote.

CameronNemo 7y ago

The governor is a predominantly executive (not legislative) branch, and people know that when they elect a governor. What if a sysadmin could deploy half the API endpoints in a piece of software? Seems like a bad idea, right? So called sweeteners are often necessary to create good policy. Often a policy will be overall good for a population but slightly bad for a large group of people (e.g. free trade). There needs to be a way to compensate those negatively affected (e.g. through reeducation programs). If a governor can selectively pass free trade but leave out the part of the deal that made it palatable, they completely change the law and screw over tons of people. Oh, and progressive taxation is a great way to eat the rich. Fuck the state and fuck capital, we will destroy anything that stands in the way of democracy.

jml7c5 7y ago

> The governor is democratically elected too, so they also represent the voice of the people. They would presumably be predisposed to picking the part(s) of the bill that the majority actually wants, i.e. the tax cut. This just means that the legislature either won't pass the bill, or will pass a convoluted version that can't be line-item vetoed. >So you're always only criticizing it on the basis of a slim majority not getting their way. Presume that there is an election. Party A takes control of the governorship with 50.1% of the vote. Party B wins 65% of the seats in the legislature. The executive has the power to line-item veto any bill, and Party B cannot overrule the veto (presuming 2/3 majority is required), despite the slim majority Party A won the governorship by.

unishark 7y ago
> Party A takes control of the governorship with 50.1% of the vote. Party B wins 65% of the seats in the legislature. The implication being that the will of 65% of the electorate's is stymied by a weaker 50.1% of the electorate? You can't actually conclude that since roughly 15 percent appear to have voted both ways, making their will in this conflict ambiguous. Perhaps they support the gov they voted for so there's actually only a minority of the public who agrees with the legislature and their law. I say "roughly" because gimmicks such as gerrymandering, but these would not affect the governor vote.