| ▲ | kfogel an hour ago | |||||||||||||
NYT, 2007: "... Think of what version control software could mean for the Congress [...]. If bills were created under a system where strike-throughs and additions were carefully tracked, the public would know which legislator made which change to a proposed piece of legislation as it made its way through the Capitol. At last, there would be transparency in the legislative process. Best-case scenario, it would shame legislators from inserting language against the public interest and only meant to reward political contributors; at worst, it would make such insertions public and allow the voters to punish the politicians who made them. ..." (from https://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/23/business/media/23link.htm... ) | ||||||||||||||
| ▲ | jonahhorowitz 43 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||||||||
I've always wanted this. It's such an obvious idea when you're a software engineer. | ||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 18 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |||||||||||||
> it would shame legislators from inserting language against the public interest and only meant to reward political contributors You’d just got a system of favors for who inserts what language. You’d hand tough edits to your safe-seat colleagues and insert messaging amendments designed to get voted down for own comms. When a measure becomes a target yada yada. (Note: this proposal is for the U.S. code. Not bills. Git for the USC works.) | ||||||||||||||
| ▲ | kelseyfrog 16 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||||||||
Such a requirement would not do what you think it would. There would not be names legislator or even aids as commit authors. The commit authors would be members of the House Office of the Legislative Counsel[1]. The House Office of the Legislative Counsel is non-partisan, impartial, and confidential. Whether transparency has merit or not, tracking provenance would make the office partisan. Is more partisanship in government not a concern? The second issue with transparency is that communication between legislators and legislative counsel member is subject to the attorney-client relationship. Breaking attorney-client privilege is a serious decision. Knowing how such a change would affect the organization and its members is not something to be taken lightly. A more convincing argument for transparency would address impartiality and confidentiality. This is pretty clearly a Chesterton's fence type situation where advocating to change a system should anticipate criticisms. Addressing opposition preemptively is an implicit demonstration of knowing why the system exists which is table stakes for changing it. | ||||||||||||||