An idea to counter partisanship

[padren]

I was just thinking today about an idea of how to bipartisanship a little easier by refining the nuance in how the Senate and Congress cast votes. Nothing would change mathematically or how they are counted, just each "Yes" would be on record as one of two variations and the same for each "No" vote cast:

 

Yes - in the affirmative:

You agree with and support this action and consider it's success or failure as reflective on your reputation.

 

Yes - concessional:

You may not agree with the action entirely for ideological reasons or are otherwise skeptical of it's chances for success, but you concede given the political climate and the need to give solutions a chance it isn't too much to ask to give it a try.

 

No - conditional:

It's not an altogether bad idea but may contain too many flaws or represents the wrong approach to solve a given problem.

 

No - with prejudice:

The action is considered to be harmful, illegal, destructive or otherwise unconstitutional.

 

 

With these sorts of votes, for one thing you could really see where people stand a lot better as a voter. Without actually directly affecting any vote counts, you could see where your representatives stand on the votes they cast, at least in a superficial sense.

 

The counter-partisanship element however, is that an opposition party could vote in favor of legislation without being immediately branded as a traitor, and an informal "give and take" would arise around concessional votes, where politicians would trade concessional votes instead of earmarks. While this dimension has always existed in Washington, it would make it more tangible to both the voters and the politicians, and clearly delineate the difference between "working with" and "working for" a given party.

 

The healthcare debate may be too hot and initially polarized for this sort of thing to have any impact on, but with finance reform, stimulus, and a whole slew of issues still unsolved it could help prevent the polarization of otherwise non-divisive issues.

 

Thoughts?

[bascule]

I like it, although my immediate reaction is most politicians aren't that considerate in their votecasting, at least most of the time.

[Mr Skeptic]

I like this idea. As it is, a legislator's vote will come back and haunt them, generally with little chance of them to explain it to the people (or rather, people are going to ignore said explanation in favor of a single 2-3 letter word). I'd agree that this would lead to more cooperation. You'd have to call the votes different words, or at least distinguish them YES, yes, no, NO.

 

However, it's missing the neutral option:

present - confused: I don't know what I'm doing

present - scared: I don't know which vote will win me more voters

(I kid, I kid!)

[Pangloss]

Not at bad idea at all.