this post was submitted on 12 Dec 2024
181 points (98.9% liked)

politics

19223 readers
3464 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 days ago (2 children)

This is why voting in Congress should be anonymous. And this is exactly why purse holders wanted voting to be public- so they could carve out any nonconformists.

Any way. These fuckers better learn from the Greeks and form a Phalanx.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Anonymous voting by elected representatives may be the goofiest thing I've heard of in a while.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Such a bad idea. Now you have no idea if your representative is actually representing you or not!

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Also no way to verify the vote is real if no accountability

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 days ago

I mean there are ways to ensure it, the most low tech option is to have a camera rolling, have all the Y/N votes stuffed into the box. Open up the box and count.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Your belief that anonymous voting in Congress is “goofy” reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how our political system operates. Public knowledge of each individual vote does little to influence electoral outcomes. I.e., voters rarely track day-to-day legislative decisions, and even when they do, their understanding of the complex procedural dynamics is limited. Campaigns are primarily won or lost based on messaging (truthful or otherwise), rather than detailed voting records.

The real leverage in our system comes from financial influence and political pressure exerted by donors, interest groups, and party leadership. This influence depends on knowing exactly how legislators vote, enabling these entities to reward or punish them accordingly. When every vote is public, politicians feel compelled to serve those who fund their campaigns rather than following their own conscience or serving the broader public interest.

The proposal I highlighted for rebuilding trust is to restore anonymous voting in Congress. This follows the same expectations a anonymous voting in general elections. By keeping individual votes private, representatives are enabled to make decisions based on their judgment and principles rather than on fear of retribution or loss of funding. Many political scientists and reform advocates agree (see discussions in the American Political Science Review or reports from nonpartisan think tanks like the Brennan Center for Justice).

It is telling that your comment has garnered so much support. This demonstrates how easily public perception can be shaped and how difficult it is to foster informed discussions about positive legislative reforms.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

The fact that pretty much every other democracy that doesn't allow rampant lobbying and corruption works with public voting but one doesn't should tell you that the problem is not with public voting.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

There are different systems. We have something called a 2-party system. Please consider yourself informed. Thanks for the downvote.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 days ago

Well, you've got "confidently incorrect" down pat. Consider yourself informed.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Horrible idea. You'd never know who needs to be voted out.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

No. That’s a lie you’ve been fed to support it. This change has done significantly more harm than good. It’s exactly what’s led to our situation of extremes. With anonymous voting, no one can get paid for their vote. This is so much better than you preventing them from voting their conscience by requiring proof.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

"Did you vote to take away my rights?"

sing-songy voice "I'm not telling!"

You think that'd be an improvement?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 days ago

The US house of representatives has 435 members. If you think half of those representatives would anonymously vote to take away your rights, you already have zero faith in humanity. Why do you think knowing how they voted would then change anything at the national population level?

The real problem is, we don’t focus on critical thinking enough in our school system.

And if you still have a problem with it, there are two houses in our congress. Keep your “accountability” in the senate, where it’s easier to monitor.