4 ms·

> The final version of the bill received rare bipartisan support, passing the state assembly 147–2 and the senate 59–4. The bill was delivered to the governor F

> The final version of the bill received rare bipartisan support, passing the state assembly 147–2 and the senate 59–4. The bill was delivered to the governor Friday, according to the New York Senate's bill tracker, though she has been considering it since late June. With such a majority surely they can override a veto? So the problem is more that it will need to happen in a new session from scratch (for some definition of scratch)?

dataflow 4y ago
My understanding is the reason it hasn't passed is that each entity has dragged its feet and then bounced it onto the other one for stalling (not just in NY). Passing bills in one chamber and having it sit there in the other - or in both chambers, but pocket vetoed - is a common tactic for these things. So it might look like it's close to passing but in reality who knows how far it is.
LanceH 4y ago
> With such a majority surely they can override a veto? Not necessarily. You have to look at votes a bit more cynically. There are generally no surprise votes in the house and senate. A 51-49 vote that passes may actually have a lot more people who would vote "yes" if they had to, but some can vote against to pay lip service to their constituents. They can go back to their district and say, "I tried to stop this bill" when they knew it would pass. Votes are regularly trade on this bases. Sometimes a party is ok with a bill not going through and "just enough" will defect from the party to kill it. Note how many votes in the senate are decided by a single senator -- even in years when the senate is not so closely divided by party. They know the numbers before it comes to the floors. With such overwhelming numbers, presumably it could pass a veto if they had the political will. Or they can just throw their hands up and say, "we tried, it's not our fault it didn't pass." Or some nuance in the bill will come out that makes in "unfeasible" to pass in the veto override. Then it goes back to committee never to be seen again, and definitely not in passable form. In short, don't view the vote on a bill as strictly a popularity vote on the bill's merits. Every actor involved has their own agenda, and to some, voting on the bill is just a way to build a favor or pay back a debt.
- PM_me_your_math 4y ago
  "Every actor involved has their own agenda, and to some, voting on the bill is just a way to build a favor or pay back a debt." Which is one of the many reasons why we need term limits for each and every politician.
  - brewdad 4y ago
    Term limits don't matter when the politicians are in the pockets of billionaire donors. (Pick your preferred boogeyman Thiel or Soros). In fact, they can make things worse as now a Representative needs to ensure he or she has their lobbying job lined up for when they can longer run for re-election.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    That just means a bunch of newbies dependent on deep-pocketed support for their first campaigns, and it'd be one of the few scenarios in which we punish job experience. For example: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/19/nyregion/george-santos-ny-republicans.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/19/nyregion/george-santos-ny...
  - llbeansandrice 4y ago
    I don’t understand why people think term limits will work. Now you just have a revolving door of people that are in the pockets of special interest groups. I’ve never seen a convincing argument for term limits and I don’t think they should exist. If you have a good representative they should be able to stay in that job for as long as the electorate wants. Your qualms are with other parts of the election process like first past the post and inability to recall reps when they’re no longer doing their job well.
Spooky23 4y ago
There is no veto. Ars had a writer who is an advocate for an issue write a news story about said issue, and completely screw up the key facts of the story. Instead of pulling the story, they made a “correction” that renders the whole thing moot. Ars should really be embarrassed by the shitshow.

dataflow 4y ago

My understanding is the reason it hasn't passed is that each entity has dragged its feet and then bounced it onto the other one for stalling (not just in NY). Passing bills in one chamber and having it sit there in the other - or in both chambers, but pocket vetoed - is a common tactic for these things. So it might look like it's close to passing but in reality who knows how far it is.

LanceH 4y ago

> With such a majority surely they can override a veto? Not necessarily. You have to look at votes a bit more cynically. There are generally no surprise votes in the house and senate. A 51-49 vote that passes may actually have a lot more people who would vote "yes" if they had to, but some can vote against to pay lip service to their constituents. They can go back to their district and say, "I tried to stop this bill" when they knew it would pass. Votes are regularly trade on this bases. Sometimes a party is ok with a bill not going through and "just enough" will defect from the party to kill it. Note how many votes in the senate are decided by a single senator -- even in years when the senate is not so closely divided by party. They know the numbers before it comes to the floors. With such overwhelming numbers, presumably it could pass a veto if they had the political will. Or they can just throw their hands up and say, "we tried, it's not our fault it didn't pass." Or some nuance in the bill will come out that makes in "unfeasible" to pass in the veto override. Then it goes back to committee never to be seen again, and definitely not in passable form. In short, don't view the vote on a bill as strictly a popularity vote on the bill's merits. Every actor involved has their own agenda, and to some, voting on the bill is just a way to build a favor or pay back a debt.

PM_me_your_math 4y ago
"Every actor involved has their own agenda, and to some, voting on the bill is just a way to build a favor or pay back a debt." Which is one of the many reasons why we need term limits for each and every politician.
- brewdad 4y ago
  Term limits don't matter when the politicians are in the pockets of billionaire donors. (Pick your preferred boogeyman Thiel or Soros). In fact, they can make things worse as now a Representative needs to ensure he or she has their lobbying job lined up for when they can longer run for re-election.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  That just means a bunch of newbies dependent on deep-pocketed support for their first campaigns, and it'd be one of the few scenarios in which we punish job experience. For example: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/19/nyregion/george-santos-ny-republicans.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/19/nyregion/george-santos-ny...
- llbeansandrice 4y ago
  I don’t understand why people think term limits will work. Now you just have a revolving door of people that are in the pockets of special interest groups. I’ve never seen a convincing argument for term limits and I don’t think they should exist. If you have a good representative they should be able to stay in that job for as long as the electorate wants. Your qualms are with other parts of the election process like first past the post and inability to recall reps when they’re no longer doing their job well.

Spooky23 4y ago

There is no veto. Ars had a writer who is an advocate for an issue write a news story about said issue, and completely screw up the key facts of the story. Instead of pulling the story, they made a “correction” that renders the whole thing moot. Ars should really be embarrassed by the shitshow.