Hacker News Reader

Comment by aurizon | Hacker News Reader

In a party based assembly(UK, Canada) the party leader tells each party member how to vote = the party line. Members can not vote against the party = out. In the US assembly(Congress and Senate) each members votes as he/she wishes. In all houses the votes(hands) are visible. This turns a vote into a currency. A lobbyist can see he gets what he has paid for and the 'bag' is passed. Every US voter has what both the Senate and Congress do not have = a secret ballot. Why? = $$$ How to fix = 2 votes, a secret ballot AND a show of hands, the secret ballot carries. There is no longer a cause/effect monetisation link. The lobbyist will see his paid for vote by show of hands pass, but lose by secret ballot = fully deniable as a member can say is was not me that wavered. Ever hear the squeals of hundreds of stuck pigs? That will happen. I wonder if the Supreme Court can interpret the current laws to ensure a secret ballot?

View on HN

Why wouldn't a congress person in this instance do the opposite? Give a show of hand for sake of TV and voters. Say they voted one way, but then vote the way they might be lobbied/influenced to? The public votes of congress people is frequently a campaign talking issue by virtue of opponents lambasting each other's vote records. How would secret ballots in congress have anything but the opposite effect of what you intend?

> I wonder if the Supreme Court can interpret the current laws to ensure a secret ballot?

There is no way the current bench on the Supreme Court of the United States of America does any sort of interpreting towards a stronger administrative state, regardless of popular support for it.

Ideally, your representative's ballot should be open, so you know they are representing your concerns, not their own. So no, absolutely not. I do not want my representative voting secretly. Focus on fixing the corrupting influence of money instead.

" In a party based assembly(UK, Canada) the party leader tells each party member how to vote = the party line. Members can not vote against the party = out. I " Im not sure about UK and Canada, but the general statement is plainly wrong.

I wouldn't say that statement is wrong, at least for Canada.

MPs, MPPs, MLAs, etc., that belong to a party typically don't deviate from the party line, even if it means going against their own constituents' wishes and interests, especially for prominent issues.

A party typically has a member who acts as what's called the "party whip", and whose role is to ensure the rest of the party's members vote as the party wishes them to, and to punish those who might not.

Voting against one's own party doesn't guarantee that that a representative will be kicked out of caucus, but it certainly has resulted in expulsions in the past (Nunziata, Casey, and Karahalios are cases I can think of off the top of my head).

I think it's reasonable to believe that Canadian politicians represent their party and themselves to a greater degree than they represent their constituents.

It's unclear to me what value the public vote would add in the system you propose. What's the point of raising hands if it doesn't matter in the least anyway?

Why not keep everything transparent and make lobbying illegal? I know neither secret voting or making lobbying illegal will ever happen but it seems like you're just putting a bandaid on an issue without regard for the consequences. People that vote for representatives like to know how they vote. Why even have the theater of a transparent vote that does nothing?

Secret or not, please don't generalize - in Switzerland they can vote as they please (even expected, although often parties will decide a certain line)

This would break the trust in voting. People want to know how someone voted if they can lie to their constituents on how they voted we will lose faith in democracy. Ban lobbying is the solution.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com