4 ms·
> SB 362 received a cumulative vote of 153 for it and 38 against it the various times it was voted on the floor of the two houses and in multiple committees. Th
by tzs 3y ago
> SB 362 received a cumulative vote of 153 for it and 38 against it the various times it was voted on the floor of the two houses and in multiple committees. That’s over 80%-win rate. It received a Republican vote on the Assembly floor, making it bipartisan.
Wait...the final Senate vote was:
D R
Yes 31 0
No 1 8
and the final Assembly vote was:
D R
Yes 52 1
No 14 14
and it is considered bipartisan because a single R voted yes?!
- littlestymaar 3y agoThat's literally what's written in your quote: > It received a Republican vote on the Assembly floor, making it bipartisan.
- tzs 3y agoThe point of my comment was to highlight that, and show the totals to make clear just how lopsided the vote was, and to ask if that usage was correct. Hence the "?!" at the end. By nearly every definition I've seen of "bipartisan" that would not be be bipartisan. There's no precise definition, but generally the usage I've seen is for these kinds of situations: 1. A majority of each party support it. 2. The majority party does not have enough votes within the party to pass it, so have to get cooperation from members of the minority party. This generally requires the majority party to make concessions to get those votes, which generally requires making some concessions that help advance the minority party's agenda. Politicians sometimes do call bills bipartisan with few (or even zero!) votes from the other party, but they get called out on that by fact checkers [1]. [1] https://www.factcheck.org/2019/12/pelosis-bipartisanship-boast/ https://www.factcheck.org/2019/12/pelosis-bipartisanship-boa...