4 ms·
Agreed. And add in having easily-viewed diffs over the course of the bill’s evolution, so we can see who’s making which changes. But there’s a lot of inertia a
by karmelapple 6y ago
Agreed. And add in having easily-viewed diffs over the course of the bill’s evolution, so we can see who’s making which changes.
But there’s a lot of inertia against changes like this. And hard limits on bills mean there’s less horse-trading to help certain legislators sign onto a bill (which often might be pork). Not a great realization, but it’s part of how bills get passed.
- infogulch 6y agoWe need radically more light on the activities of legislators. Sunlight cleanses all. I think this is necessary to get us out of the quagmire that we find ourselves in, but any additional transparency will inevitably lead to witch hunts which -- even if deserved -- will lead to instability. We need to give ourselves and our representatives a path to transition to the light without letting cynical people bomb out the foundations of our society with emotion-fueled rage mobs. Perhaps another post on the front page right now is relevant here: On the bare necessity of psychological safety - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26860743 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26860743
- anigbrowl 6y agoAnd add in having easily-viewed diffs over the course of the bill’s evolution, so we can see who’s making which changes. We already have that, except a) it's not as easily to read as it might be and b) without significant study, it's often not obvious what the import of a change is. I think we need to be thinking about a long term goal fo dispensing with representatives as they currently exist and moving toward a wiki-ocracy, where anyone can write or edit parts of the legal code but there are procedures for conflict resolution, as well as constraints of various kinds.