5 ms·

Would you rather them not be introduced at all? It's one thing to be cynical, and it's another to be apathetic. This bill has a low chance of passing, but it w

by gtaylor 11y ago

Would you rather them not be introduced at all? It's one thing to be cynical, and it's another to be apathetic. This bill has a low chance of passing, but it will get some people talking about the issue at hand. There's a slim possibility that if they keep going, future versions will see more support. It's unlikely that positive change can be made without these initial small steps (or failures).

gizmo686 11y ago
Introducing a bill that you have no intention of passing (or do not expect to pass) is like submitting a pull request that you know will get rejected. It would be much better to do your job and, instead of submitting something that will get rejected for the sake of submitting it, spend the time to draft a solution that has a chance of passing.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  Passing laws requires getting other people to vote on them, which in practice requires mobilizing groups interested in the topic, which in turn requires getting attention on the issue, which in turn is often served by introducing bills on the issue, even if those don't pass. So, even if one views the job of a legislator as "passing laws", introducing bills that are not expected to pass as a means of raising awareness, in order that bills on the issue may be more viable to pass in the future, is a legislator doing their job.
  - gtaylor 11y ago
    Indeed. There are whole third party presidential candidates whose "real" goal is to do this with their platforms.
  - DannyBee 11y ago
    "Passing laws requires getting other people to vote on them, which in practice requires mobilizing groups interested in the topic, which in turn requires getting attention on the issue, which in turn is often served by introducing bills on the issue, even if those don't pass." Actually, in practice, it happens exactly the other way around. IE you get support first, then introduce the bill.
- late2part 11y ago
  When a person is in a no-win situation, is it better to do some good, or to try to do the right thing? This is a difficult question. When you can't win - you should work to change the rules. I don't agree that this bill has no chance of passing - we should not endorse regression to the mean.

by gtaylor 11y ago

gizmo686 11y ago

Introducing a bill that you have no intention of passing (or do not expect to pass) is like submitting a pull request that you know will get rejected. It would be much better to do your job and, instead of submitting something that will get rejected for the sake of submitting it, spend the time to draft a solution that has a chance of passing.

dragonwriter 11y ago
Passing laws requires getting other people to vote on them, which in practice requires mobilizing groups interested in the topic, which in turn requires getting attention on the issue, which in turn is often served by introducing bills on the issue, even if those don't pass. So, even if one views the job of a legislator as "passing laws", introducing bills that are not expected to pass as a means of raising awareness, in order that bills on the issue may be more viable to pass in the future, is a legislator doing their job.
- gtaylor 11y ago
  Indeed. There are whole third party presidential candidates whose "real" goal is to do this with their platforms.
- DannyBee 11y ago
  "Passing laws requires getting other people to vote on them, which in practice requires mobilizing groups interested in the topic, which in turn requires getting attention on the issue, which in turn is often served by introducing bills on the issue, even if those don't pass." Actually, in practice, it happens exactly the other way around. IE you get support first, then introduce the bill.
late2part 11y ago
When a person is in a no-win situation, is it better to do some good, or to try to do the right thing? This is a difficult question. When you can't win - you should work to change the rules. I don't agree that this bill has no chance of passing - we should not endorse regression to the mean.