3 ms·

Do you think committees would make better decisions if their members could lie about how they voted? You might "solve" the polarization problem by making it ha

Do you think committees would make better decisions if their members could lie about how they voted? You might "solve" the polarization problem by making it harder to know who to blame, but I don't think that would solve the root cause of people's frustrations.

int_19h 5y ago
Committees would make decisions that are less affected by populist pandering, resulting in a more centrist policy overall, and less severe policy swings between different administrations. Whether such decisions are better or not depends on the specific circumstances and one's subjective perspective. Populism generally translates to more extreme politics, but sometimes more extreme is what you need to dig yourself out of a hole. Conversely, less pandering to popular opinion generally means more insider arrangements and other institutionalized corruption.
- dane-pgp 5y ago
  It would be nice to think that committees would be freed from the pressures of democratic accountability and could finally make the enlightened decisions they had always been yearning for, but I don't think that is the most likely outcome. Instead you would likely see the dominant party passing extreme legislation on 51/49 majorities, with every politician being able to claim that actually they were a centrist and they voted against the legislation (and it must have been disloyal members of the other party that enabled the vote to pass). In fact, the veil of secrecy might even allow members of a minority party to claim that they are against some extreme policy, but actually collude with a faction from the majority party to narrowly pass it, either because it benefits the politicians themselves (at the expense of their voters) or because the extreme outcome would motivate their supporters to re-elect them.

3 ms·

Do you think committees would make better decisions if their members could lie about how they voted? You might "solve" the polarization problem by making it ha

by dane-pgp 5y ago

int_19h 5y ago
Committees would make decisions that are less affected by populist pandering, resulting in a more centrist policy overall, and less severe policy swings between different administrations. Whether such decisions are better or not depends on the specific circumstances and one's subjective perspective. Populism generally translates to more extreme politics, but sometimes more extreme is what you need to dig yourself out of a hole. Conversely, less pandering to popular opinion generally means more insider arrangements and other institutionalized corruption.
- dane-pgp 5y ago
  It would be nice to think that committees would be freed from the pressures of democratic accountability and could finally make the enlightened decisions they had always been yearning for, but I don't think that is the most likely outcome. Instead you would likely see the dominant party passing extreme legislation on 51/49 majorities, with every politician being able to claim that actually they were a centrist and they voted against the legislation (and it must have been disloyal members of the other party that enabled the vote to pass). In fact, the veil of secrecy might even allow members of a minority party to claim that they are against some extreme policy, but actually collude with a faction from the majority party to narrowly pass it, either because it benefits the politicians themselves (at the expense of their voters) or because the extreme outcome would motivate their supporters to re-elect them.