| During the run up to the Stupak amendment, it appeared that the measure could be defeated by turning a few Democrats against it. In the end, 64 Democrats voted for it, 23 more than the 41 minimum needed to pass it (assuming all Republicans voted for it). During the vote, some observers described Democrats "piling on" once they saw the measure would pass anyway. This sort of thing happens all the time, but I have never seen a critical word written about the practice.
Why should it be that when asked to vote on a bill, members of Congress can watch how others are voting, and even change their vote before the result is finalized? Whose interest is that in? Who benefits? What societal value exists in allowing politicians to so obviously shift in the breeze?
Outcomes in legislative bodies must be a matter of public record, but there's no inherent reason that during the vote members should see how others are voting, know the count, and even be able to change their already cast vote, is there? Ordinary citizens do not get this luxury when voting; generally no results are published until the polls close (at least for their state). Should they vote for the wrong person, how many jurisdictions would allow a second ballot, to try again? |
| Lying to Voters
One clear winner of a blind voting system would be simple honesty. Delaying their vote until the outcome is assured, and even changing their votes are well worn tactics used by moderates to pad their resumes without angering their party leadership. It's really a form of lying to voters. Kabuki opposition to bills, while nodding and winking to the savy as they pass. It sure does keep a lot of "moderate" politicians in office, but I don't see how much benefit that is to Americans generally. Voters deserve to know whether their members actually wanted a given measure to pass or not, which would be more often reflected in their votes if they had to vote blindly. While there will always be some amount of these predicable result votes where moderates can safely vote against their party without jeopardizing a bill, what reason is there to make this sort of thing easier and more common by allowing them the luxury of watching the decided votes come in first, and then choosing based on cynical political calculation? It just subsidizes cowardice. When you consider how cynical the average person is about politicians (and government itself, partly as a consequence), open tally voting is a needless addition to the problem.
Empowering Moderates
It's likely that this system contributes to the undue influence of moderates on key bills. The leadership will often have a number of wavering caucus members to persuade and cajole, and probably often over-promises on incentives to ensure they have enough votes "in pocket" in case something goes wrong. It is exceedingly rare that a bill ever gets defeated these days. When the House voted down the TARP last year, it was a big shock, which the Village accounted a big failure in Pelosi's leadership to have sent something for a vote without it would pass. When the Health bill hit 219 Democrats, did Pelosi give the nod to a bunch more moderates that it was okay now to vote no? If so, what did she have to promise them, and does anyone think they won't collect even though they ultimately weren't needed to vote for the bill? That might go some way to explaining results like this (as another term for "vulnerable members" is "moderates").
Centralizing Power
Further, there is the spectacle of the leadership leaning on reluctant members in real time while holding the vote open, as Tom Delay famously did during the votes for Medicare Part D, and for CAFTA. By knowing who had already voted yes and no, the leadership can focus on particular members. The effect here is to centralize more power in the hands of each party's leadership. That may or may not be a good thing, but it is a consequence of the current process for holding votes, and worth consideration.
In Parliamentary systems, there is usually some degree of awareness of the tally during the vote, but generally this sort of thing isn't an issue due to the strict party discipline that usually goes hand in hand with having a parliament. Further, in Canada for example the manner of the voting in roll call votes leaves almost no opportunity for altering one's vote based on the already counted results. This seems to be a feature unique to American style systems.
I'd be interested to read the community's thoughts on this. Are there any state legislatures that keep the votes secret until they close? It's a wonkish procedural issue, but one which has real consequences for the conduct of American governance. It's also one could be fixed relatively easily, as either chamber could simply amend their procedures. The House already has electronic voting from the members' desks. The Senate votes by voice, but there's really no specific reason other than quaint tradition that this must be so. Even if this system is kept around, perhaps this sort of thing should be tracked? Shouldn't voters get to know not just how a member voted, but when?, or if they initially voted a different way? I suspect one would find a high correlation between how long a member waits to vote, how often they change their initial vote, and how generally conniving and oily they are. What say you, Progressive Punch? DW-Nominate? |
