Hacker News Reader

Comment by khafra | Hacker News Reader

I would have called this too ridiculous to pose an actual danger before the PATRIOT Act.

It points to a deeper problem, though: Lawmakers intent on passing something that a large portion of the public finds objectionable can often achieve their goal simply by persistence; renaming and resubmitting a bill each time oppositional furor dies down, or slipping pieces of it into unrelated bills until it's effectively passed.

I'm normally far more progressive than conservative, but at times like this I wish there were some penalty associated with proposing or backing a really bad bill, or with legislation by subterfuge.

View on HN

That's a special case of what I believe is called the ratchet effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratchet_effect

> I'm normally far more progressive than conservative, but at times like this I wish there were some penalty associated with proposing or backing a really bad bill, or with legislation by subterfuge.

I believe the intended result for this, if a sufficient portion of the represented find this behavior objectionable, is to lose one's office. This assumes an educated electorate , or at least the voting subset of the represented to be so educated and so opposed.

But oftentimes, the party of the incumbent won't run another candidate (since that might split the vote and lose the seat to the other party). So the only way to vote an incumbent out is to vote for the other party, which may also be against your interests.

You might also turn in a blank ballot. Depending on circumstance, this might be a fine way to signal to the incumbent that they did not do a Good Job, though you in general support the policy of their party. Close races, etc, will change the calculus of voting. Some states do not include blank ballots in the vote totals, others do.

An simple improvement to our voting system would be to include a 'none of the above' option on all ballot papers. If 'none of the above' should win, another ballot must be held and the original candidates are excluded from running.

Too bad writing a message invalidates the ballot. Otherwise you could write "Candidate A, with protest"

Officeholders don't read ballots.

>You might also turn in a blank ballot.

Which is equivalent to boosting the winning party.

Is there a "canonical" justification for why the US legislative system allows non-germane additions to a bill? Or is ball-of-mud style legislation the norm due to tradition, rather than some philosophical ideal?

Do you mean riders? https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Rider_%28legi... The House actually has a "germanness rule" (which is not in the Constitution), so they generally avoid it as a matter of policy. But the Senate has no such rule. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Christmas_tre... So a bill which passes the House goes to the Senate, where riders are added. Then the modifications go back to the house, where it might be passed depending on whether they like the new additions or not.

I wish there were some penalty associated with proposing or backing a really bad bill

There is: the ballot box (standard annoying answer), or by organizing and forcing them to pass a bill saying they can't do what is in the bad bill. Both the Occupy and Net Neutrality movements overlap here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com