Bill: Rejected Congressional Transparency and Accountability Act

[Smami]

A
BILL
To

Amend the Legislative Standards Act​

The people of the Commonwealth of Redmont, through their elected Representatives in the Congress and the force of law ordained to that Congress by the people through the constitution, do hereby enact the following provisions into law:

1 - Short Title and Enactment
(1) This Act may be cited as the 'Congressional Transparency and Accountability Act'
(2) This Act shall be enacted immediately upon its signage.
(3) This Act has been authored by Senator 1950minecrafter and Representative Smami.
(4) This Act has been co-sponsored by Representative RealImza and Senator Sofia2750.

2 - Reasons
1. The citizens of Redmont shall be informed about why their elected representatives are voting one way or the other.
2. This bill seeks to do this by amending the Legislative Standards Act.

3 - Amendments

Section 13 of the Legislative Standards Act shall be amended as follows:

“
(1) If or when there is a motion against or relating specifically to a member of Congress, that member of Congress shall not be allowed to vote on that motion.
(2) An abstention vote may be submitted during voting if the member does not wish to vote for or against a matter before Congress. Failure to vote at all will be considered a non-vote and for the purposes of all other acts will be counted as an abstention.”
(3) All votes on a bill, motion, or any similar document and/or process shall be reasoned.
(a) This reasoning must be stated within the forums thread if it’s on the forums, or within the message thread if it’s on discord.
(b) In the case of a revote on a bill within the forums, the initial reasoning posted may be assumed to continue to be the reasoning for one's vote, unless their vote has changed.
”

 

[Franciscus]

Nay. Section 32(6) of the Constitution guarantees a fundamental and basic right to "Freedom of Political Communication" and Section 32(12) of the same guarantees "Freedom of Association".

We have a single district multi-member proportional electoral system. This allows political minorities to elect candidates of their choosing in order to gain representation. It also means that we have to tolerate political minorities choosing their political strategy regarding communication - we should not be invalidating their votes when they choose to withhold comment as a matter of basic political strategy.

Voters may choose to punish individuals whom they see as lazy, see as not explaining themselves, or see as inactive. Voters are free to make their decisions accordingly. And I support more transparency and believe that giving reasons for votes is generally good when others have not yet given it - I do this plenty. But I don't think mandating all votes to have a publicly stated reason on pain of vote invalidation is in line with our constitutional order nor a society that gives individuals the freedom to choose their own political communication strategy.

 

[girlfailcoded]

Nay. While I entirely support the reasoning of this bill, being that we should encourage more cooperative behavior within congress, I find putting it into law would supply bad actors with the means to remove members they do not agree with rather than promote a healthier environment beneficial to democracy.

 

[Scassany]

Abs - Genuinely, I cannot make a decision on this bill that I feel comfortable with standing by. I agree with the content of the bill, and think that increased transparency on why representatives vote is a benefit. I agree with the arguments put forward by multiman about the issues this bill would create. I don't think either argument outweighs the other, so I will abstain. I will, however, take this bill as a reason to improve my own transparency and include reasons for my votes going forward.