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?
