3 ms·

There's lots of research saying most citizens have no idea how their representatives vote, even when it's open, and the people who do track it are the lobbyist

There's lots of research saying most citizens have no idea how their representatives vote, even when it's open, and the people who do track it are the lobbyists, consider Myth 5 from CRI's 7 myths of transparency [0]. If the committee votes were secret, aka more of the process were secret but not the final floor votes, then we could still see how they voted in the end. Also, if I'm not able to see how they vote individually, I'd probably be more likely to vote for people based on their team performance and not their individual performance and I think this is the biggest point for me. I don't care how Senator X votes, I care if Senator X convinces the team of Senators to pass a legislation. One Senator who says "but I voted the way you wanted me to vote" accomplishes much less for me than one Senator who is able to convince and negotiate with the other 99 to pass a bill that I wanted. So I'd look at whether things were happening that I wanted overall and if they weren't, I'd get rid of the person for not having the ability to move the team to better represent what I want. [0]: https://congressionalresearch.org/SevenDeadlyMyths.html https://congressionalresearch.org/SevenDeadlyMyths.html

giantg2 4y ago
The arguments in that source are pretty poor. For example, given the number of people who die from medical mistakes, people absolutely should be taking more of a role in their own care. They offer no objective evidence to support their position. They even claim that all sorts of social ills were lower during the period of secrecy and suppose they must be related. I pay attention to what my representatives vote on the issues I care most about. How do you know if your senator convinced people to vote for their bill if the process is secret? I could just be that they would have voted party line regardless.
- jimkleiber 4y ago
  I'm open to your disagreement just also quite confused on what you specifically mean. > The arguments in that source are pretty poor. Which arguments are poor and why? > They offer no objective evidence to support their position. Which positions do you think lack objective support? > They even claim that all sorts of social ills were lower during the period of secrecy and suppose they must be related. I agree that it may overstate the causation where it might just be correlation. At the same time, do you think that it's not worthy to investigate further? That many of at least the political ills could be strongly correlated with the increase in transparency? > For example, given the number of people who die from medical mistakes, people absolutely should be taking more of a role in their own care. I'm not sure if this is an example they mention or you were providing an analogy. I agree people should be taking more of a role in their medical care, I think the authors would agree as well. But do you think the patient should watch the surgeon's every move to make sure the surgeon is doing it exactly how the patient wanted it? At what point should the patient let go and trust the surgeon to do their job?
  - giantg2 4y ago
    "While a number of scholars claim that a lack of citizen engagement is a fatal problem, significant data suggests otherwise" They make claims about significant data supporting thus, but don't provide it. "And because lobbyists for the powerful appear to be the main consumers of transparent government, the evidence (below) suggests that governments function even better without a fully informed citizenry." This doesn't logically follow. One could make lobbying reforms to curtail the problems associated with that while still allowing transparency for the citizens. "This is because a republic works in much the same way as one might hire a plumber, roofer, surgeon or a mechanic. Indeed, when citizens choose to hire doctors or mechanics, the evidence is pretty clear that even when it comes to possible life threatening outcomes, few of us choose to become as informed as we likely should." People still need to be vigilant and I formed when dealing with these professions so they don't get ripped off. People should be educating themselves enough to ask intelligent medical questions. People should seek second opinions. People should educate themselves to know the terminology and basic function of a car so they aren't getting ripped off by a mechanic. To People who view the whole situation and know the details, their example is actually an argument against the point they are making. "By publishing just the final floor votes, the active citizens can still correlate votes to candidates, but by closing the doors of committees, the lobbyists and other extreme demanders are kept in check." How did they reach this conclusion that lobbyists would be kept in check? Wouldn't lobbyists still be able to see the floor votes? I see no reason would affect the ability of lobbyists to continue their influence. Most of the rest of the content are quotes, fluff, and supposition about inequality being related to a lack of secrecy. There's no objective data or links to studies.
    - jimkleiber 4y ago
      I appreciate you taking the time to write these out. I want to research it a bit more before replying and also share what you wrote with one of the authors of that site who is a friend of mine, as I think that more evidence may be there just not so directly connected to that one article. Regardless, for now, thank you.
      - jimkleiber 4y ago

giantg2 4y ago

The arguments in that source are pretty poor. For example, given the number of people who die from medical mistakes, people absolutely should be taking more of a role in their own care. They offer no objective evidence to support their position. They even claim that all sorts of social ills were lower during the period of secrecy and suppose they must be related. I pay attention to what my representatives vote on the issues I care most about. How do you know if your senator convinced people to vote for their bill if the process is secret? I could just be that they would have voted party line regardless.

jimkleiber 4y ago
I'm open to your disagreement just also quite confused on what you specifically mean. > The arguments in that source are pretty poor. Which arguments are poor and why? > They offer no objective evidence to support their position. Which positions do you think lack objective support? > They even claim that all sorts of social ills were lower during the period of secrecy and suppose they must be related. I agree that it may overstate the causation where it might just be correlation. At the same time, do you think that it's not worthy to investigate further? That many of at least the political ills could be strongly correlated with the increase in transparency? > For example, given the number of people who die from medical mistakes, people absolutely should be taking more of a role in their own care. I'm not sure if this is an example they mention or you were providing an analogy. I agree people should be taking more of a role in their medical care, I think the authors would agree as well. But do you think the patient should watch the surgeon's every move to make sure the surgeon is doing it exactly how the patient wanted it? At what point should the patient let go and trust the surgeon to do their job?
- giantg2 4y ago
  "While a number of scholars claim that a lack of citizen engagement is a fatal problem, significant data suggests otherwise" They make claims about significant data supporting thus, but don't provide it. "And because lobbyists for the powerful appear to be the main consumers of transparent government, the evidence (below) suggests that governments function even better without a fully informed citizenry." This doesn't logically follow. One could make lobbying reforms to curtail the problems associated with that while still allowing transparency for the citizens. "This is because a republic works in much the same way as one might hire a plumber, roofer, surgeon or a mechanic. Indeed, when citizens choose to hire doctors or mechanics, the evidence is pretty clear that even when it comes to possible life threatening outcomes, few of us choose to become as informed as we likely should." People still need to be vigilant and I formed when dealing with these professions so they don't get ripped off. People should be educating themselves enough to ask intelligent medical questions. People should seek second opinions. People should educate themselves to know the terminology and basic function of a car so they aren't getting ripped off by a mechanic. To People who view the whole situation and know the details, their example is actually an argument against the point they are making. "By publishing just the final floor votes, the active citizens can still correlate votes to candidates, but by closing the doors of committees, the lobbyists and other extreme demanders are kept in check." How did they reach this conclusion that lobbyists would be kept in check? Wouldn't lobbyists still be able to see the floor votes? I see no reason would affect the ability of lobbyists to continue their influence. Most of the rest of the content are quotes, fluff, and supposition about inequality being related to a lack of secrecy. There's no objective data or links to studies.
  - jimkleiber 4y ago
    I appreciate you taking the time to write these out. I want to research it a bit more before replying and also share what you wrote with one of the authors of that site who is a friend of mine, as I think that more evidence may be there just not so directly connected to that one article. Regardless, for now, thank you.
    - jimkleiber 4y ago