The LA Times has published a fascinating story about the role of vote abstention by California state lawmakers. Some abstentions come for obvious reasons, such as personal or other professional obligations that keep lawmakers out of the Assembly or Senate for a day or part of a day. But others are conscious political decisions, usually aimed at creating greater power in later rounds of voting.
Whenever the state Assembly votes on a bill, there's a good chance Jerome Horton will press neither the green "yes" nor the red "no" button on his desk. He says abstaining makes him powerful.
"When you vote yes or no," said the Democrat from Inglewood, "it takes you out of the negotiations, and I don't ever want to be out of the game."
When lawmakers can't get the votes they need to pass their measures, they rush to court the undecided in hopes of changing an abstention to a "yes" on another round of voting. That gives the abstainer leverage to argue for changes in the bill.
"I'm Mr. 41," said Assemblyman Horton, referring to the last vote needed to pass most bills. "I'm always in the game."
Another explanation is that non-voting can be a political act of respect
It's considered "in your face," [politicians, their staff, and political scientists] say, to vote against a bill written by a member of your party. Abstaining, some say, is a way to sugar-coat a no so it won't offend a colleague or a committee chair who could exact revenge on your own legislation.
"I know it's stupid, but there is a psychological effect in people when you vote no on their bill," said Assemblyman Alberto Torrico (D-Newark), who in June abstained on several bills dealing with air pollution, land use and chemical regulation.
"My constituents want me to be effective," Torrico said, "and one way to be effective is to not [anger] senators and Assembly members." Torrico said he could avoid the problem "by laying off stuff instead of saying no."
Still another explanation is that sometimes a single vote on a clearly winning or losing bill might rub constituents (or donors) the wrong way.
Torrico, for example, originally voted for a bill, AB 1101, to regulate air pollution at ports, airports, rail yards and distribution centers where diesel trucks congregate. He supported it even though it was opposed, he said, by New United Motor Manufacturing, a General Motors-Toyota venture that employs 5,000 people in his Bay Area district.
"I thought, 'This is a good bill,' " Torrico said.
Bills that don't pass the first time may be brought up repeatedly by the author, and subsequent votes showed the diesel measure would probably fail. In the end, Torrico abstained, opting not to attach his name to a losing proposition that might have offended one of his district's big employers.
"It was going nowhere," said Torrico. "And I said: What's the point of me being on the bill?"
But despite whatever political motivations might lead to a conscious abstention on a vote, some lawmakers and citizens alike see it as simply a fundamental shirking of the duty that legislators were elected to do in the first place.
"You're there to do a job and to represent your constituents," said Bruce Cain, director of the Institute of Governmental Studies at UC Berkeley. "If you're not making decisions it seems to me you're not fulfilling your obligation."
Abstentions so annoy one group, the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights in Santa Monica, that it has drafted a ballot initiative that would withhold the pay of lawmakers on days when they don't vote.
"If I came to my job and a third of the time didn't do what I was supposed to, I wouldn't have a job," said foundation President Jamie Court, who hopes to put the initiative on the ballot next year.
Vote abstentions in California - like in many other state governments - can be particularly impactful because the state law requires that there be a majority of "yes" votes for any bill to pass. So is it worse to commit a sin of commission or a sin of omission? One study conducted by the University of Southern California concluded that, in the 2000-2001 session of the CA state legislature, abstentions were decisive in almost 40% of the bills that failed, many of which got more "yes" votes than "no" votes, but failed because of the lack of a majority due to abstentions.
Good points to bring up. Also it needs to be noted that voters rarely put their elected state official's feet to the fire for anything. In California, where the state legislature has significantly contributed to the decline of the state as a whole, that a real problem.
Bottom line, check out what your state representatives and senators are doing, and put a shot or a "well done" across their bow from time to time. It won't necessarily keep them honest, but it will make them think.
The long and the short of it is that politics is the most ridiculous method by which important matters pertaining to the greater bulk of society could possibly be decided, and should not be taken seriously by anyone, especially the people who do it for a living.
The way they talk, the way most politicians talk, its liek they forget that they are NOBODYS. They don't have a normal job where their opinion counts, in their job it doesn't. They are suposed to act as the majority of their constituents would, period.
And if it is necessary for someone to need to watch to not step on the toes of another because they might get a stick in their pussy, then that person (stick-in-pussy) should get thrown the fuck out of their position for not doig their job.
There're alot of 'shoulds' there though.
this sort of stupid shit is exactly the reason we should have individual voting on all bills. we have the technology to make it feesable, and so what if every person doesn't have time to vote on all the bills, or read every piece of legislation. The Assemblyman and Senators etc. already AREN'T fucking doing that. So we're just paying them to do what we could already do ourselves, more effectively, and in a way that would more accurately serve our political system (how its meant to be).
Sexdwarf said:
The way they talk, the way most politicians talk, its liek they forget that they are NOBODYS. They don't have a normal job where their opinion counts, in their job it doesn't. They are suposed to act as the majority of their constituents would, period.
And if it is necessary for someone to need to watch to not step on the toes of another because they might get a stick in their pussy, then that person (stick-in-pussy) should get thrown the fuck out of their position for not doig their job.
There're alot of 'shoulds' there though.
this sort of stupid shit is exactly the reason we should have individual voting on all bills. we have the technology to make it feesable, and so what if every person doesn't have time to vote on all the bills, or read every piece of legislation. The Assemblyman and Senators etc. already AREN'T fucking doing that. So we're just paying them to do what we could already do ourselves, more effectively, and in a way that would more accurately serve our political system (how its meant to be).
misstyrios
NEWSWIRE
Allston, MA
AUG 28, 2005 04:57 PM