3 ms·

This seems like a weak argument since compromise may be more difficult, but it certainly isn't impossible when conversations are transparent. Eventually the "lo

This seems like a weak argument since compromise may be more difficult, but it certainly isn't impossible when conversations are transparent. Eventually the "losers" of a compromise are going to learn about how their elected officials voted and what the impact of that vote will be for them, and they'll hold their elected officials accountable for it regardless. It just isn't worth forcing every person to give up the ability to protect themselves by recording their everyday conversations just so that politicians can lie to the public and their donors while screwing over the people behind closed doors.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
Legislative deliberation, i.e. hashing out details, should be open [1]. At the bargaining phase, when you're working out high-level frameworks, the theory says closed doors win [2]. (Put another way, in a transparent bargaining environment, the winning move is to ignore your opponent and beat your drums to your base.) > Eventually the "losers" of a compromise are going to learn about how their elected officials voted The point is to let both sides table ideas without having to face the downside. To propose what if scenarios to the other side. [1] https://preprints.apsanet.org/engage/api-gateway/apsa/assets/orp/resource/item/5dab57a5a6490200117d29bc/original/does-transparency-inhibit-political-compromise.pdf https://preprints.apsanet.org/engage/api-gateway/apsa/assets... [2] https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/225/1/open-door8.pdf https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/225/1/open-door8.pdf