The title says it all. Can you write a bill in such a way that those who vote against it will not benefit from it if it should pass anyway?
this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2023
94 points (93.5% liked)
politics
19241 readers
2805 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Firstly, a law shouldn't need to be written so black-and-white. A pretty famous example is how the EU uses targeted sanctions/tariffs to impact the opposition. Like when the Trump admin was threatening a trade war with Europe, the EU responded by threatening new tariffs on specific US products. Said tariffs would hurt trade goods from Republican states more often than not.
So the EU didn't just come out and say, "we're going to punish the Republican admin by targeting Republican states". But that's what they did effectively. Here's a NYC article that covers the situation. To quote the relevant line:
^ That's all stuff that typically comes more from Republican states.
What I'm getting at is the way a bill is written can hurt the opposition, without needing to spell it out "If you don't vote yes you lose" style. Spelling it out would just cost unnecessary political capital.
As far as the broader concept of writing laws that hurt the opposition, I would just use it as a tactical consideration. Maybe using the threat of a less favorable bill could get the opposition to compromise faster. But it's absolutely a tactic that can backfire, and there are policies that I should hope we never use such tactics with. Like, in the context of the US, imagine only giving public healthcare to states that supported it. That would be terrible. Last I checked, Texas is the state with the 2nd most Democrats in the country. So tons of people who would want that healthcare, and would have voted for it, wouldn't be receiving it.
And for what? Out of some kind of desire for revenge or some feeling of fairness? That's not going to go down well in the long run. Any governing party should be trying to better the entire country. If this kind of tactic was used too much, then you risk galvanizing the opposition and pissing off Independents. Which is a surefire way to lose next election season.