points by refurb 2 days ago | 0 comments
The system would be gamed by the politicians.
Insert language you know will never get enough votes
Don’t strike out but add language to make it useless
Plus the bill sponsor often makes changes others ask for, so the true author isn’t noted
It would be a mess and ignored by the public after a while
[–] lopis 2 days ago
Git does allow multiple contributors on each commit. Of course people can lie, but it's a matter of policy in the end. Make it a crime to not add all contributors to a diff.
[–] sharpshadow 1 day ago
The politicians wouldn’t have the option to game it if additional data is pulled in automatically like lobbying disclosure filings, public watchdog databases, etc. for the final overview. A swift turn from limiting the total sugar amount in soda would look quite bad if the politician got lobbied by Big Soda.
[–] 3form 2 days ago
Every system gets gamed, and so is the current one. The goal is that the people can more easily stay informed. Even with mixed authors problem you highlight would be still an improvement.
[–] DavidSchor 1 day ago
But there would be a papertrail that can be revisited. And journalists can access to keep people informed of systemic or major issues.
[–] xmprt 1 day ago
There already is a papertrail. It's just that it's extremely convoluted to navigate. This isn't a technology problem.
[–] matwood 1 day ago
Convoluted to navigate sounds like a problem that could be solved with technology…
[–] xmprt 1 day ago
Could be? Yes. But I don't know if it's super clear that any existing technology would solve the problem without also introducing new process changes. For example, I can imagine a world where the laws are just a bunch of text files and instead of using git to make changes, we just add a new text file and there's a preamble that says that the law is superseded by any future laws. Laws also aren't as clear cut as code. We have tons of contradictory laws on the books today.
What I'm getting at is that, if we need to make process changes anyway in order to actually make the technology work for us, then the real solution is in the process and not in the technology.
This is often especially cynical because [popular thing x] is often something that neither party wants to pass. So a very recent example of this was an act against insider trading by politicians, that was bundled with a voter id law. Neither side wants to clamp down on insider trading from politicians, so the entire act was DOA. It was nothing but bread and circuses.