4 ms·
In March of 1971 the house eliminated "teller votes", where representatives' votes on amendments to bills were private; the system then moved to recorded votes,
by clarkevans 6y ago
In March of 1971 the house eliminated "teller votes", where representatives' votes on amendments to bills were private; the system then moved to recorded votes, initially with red/green cards, and then in 1973 with electronic votes. After March of 1971, the public could learn exactly which representatives voted for exactly which amendments. In practice, this accountability change meant that lobbyists and their clients gained knowledge of which representatives defected and which ones towed line.
- pyuser583 6y agoThis is a very unpopular opinion, but transparency is not necessarily a good thing.
- csharptwdec19 6y agoIt looks bad here because in this case the root cause is the quid-pro-quo/pay-to-play lobbying system. The transparency SHOULD be good in that it should be able to show the electorate whether reps did what they said they would. In reality it is, as mentioned above, instead used to appease a small but powerful body of the electorate.
- stronglikedan 6y agoIf I had to pick between transparency and lobbying (in its current form), I'd take transparency.
- war1025 6y agoThe person saying transparency wasn't a good thing was saying that because transparency allows for more efficient lobbying, it has resulted in a more easily gamed system. The tradeoff they are pointing out isn't "transparency or lobbying" it's "transparency + rampant lobbying vs secrecy + less effective lobbying"
- TeMPOraL 6y agoRelated: there's a reason lack of transparency in individual voting is critical for fair elections.