How Many Senators Would Have Voted Otherwise?
 

While everyone is making a big deal about how the issue was brought to a vote, I think it is important to know what the vote would have been if the internet bill stood alone. My impression is that it would still have passed easily. Am I right? If so that is important to know.

Re: How Many Senators Would Have Voted Otherwise?
 

Yes, it would have passed on its own by a very large majority.

Re: How Many Senators Would Have Voted Otherwise?
 

What am I thinking of when I remember reading on here by respectable posters that HR4411 was estimated at like 30% to pass a little before the Frist thing came up?

Re: How Many Senators Would Have Voted Otherwise?
 

Yes it would have passed on it's own. Though if the subject was debated a bit it might have lent itself to helping the "someday regulating and taxing" cause.

Just sneaking it through helps nothing......... I'm also 100% wrong as I sit here and type. The way this bill was snuck through may actually help somehow too we'll just have to wait and see

Re: How Many Senators Would Have Voted Otherwise?
 

I don't know if it would have passed by itself or not. I do know, however, that if it stood by itself and never got attached to anything they probably never would have voted on it anyway.

Re: How Many Senators Would Have Voted Otherwise?
 

On it's "own" I think it was more likely NOT to pass than to pass. But I don't follow politics very closely...maybe someone can chime in here. (I bet the european stock traders would have a good guess)

Re: How Many Senators Would Have Voted Otherwise?
 

Why is this important? What's important is that we move on and try to figure out a solution to this whole thing, not think what coulda been and was.

Re: How Many Senators Would Have Voted Otherwise?
 

When the brought the issue up on the McLaughlin group (I believe this was after it had already passed the House by a huge majority, but I can't remember for sure), most if not all of the experts as I remember it predicted it would not pass. However, I think some of their prediction was based on the fact that it would not even make it to the floor.

As a comparison, the flag burning amendment which was proposed this congress also passed the house by a huge majority, but failed in the Senate by, I think, one vote, so an overwhelming house majority does not necessarily mean Senate passage even if the issue does get to a vote(although I think the gambling ban passed the house by a wider margin than the flag burning amendment did).

Re: How Many Senators Would Have Voted Otherwise?
 

I think it's important to clarify when you say it would not pass whether it would pass if it got voted on. My first reply assumed that the holds and whatever other means in place to stop the bill were overcome and the bill came to a vote. If this were the case, you would be hard pressed to argue that it would not pass.

Re: How Many Senators Would Have Voted Otherwise?
 

Totally irrelevant. Each sesion there might be hundreds of potential bills floating around, most of which woulld pass if they reached the floor. Especially in an election year, especially the day of adjorment.

But these bills never see the floor because of the process that exists to prevent, or at least, reduce the likelyhood of, politically motivated measures or frivilous matters from becoming law.

How could senators vote against the port bill? Give me a break.

No, it does not matter at all if this bill would have passed on its on, the fact is that it never reached the floor on its own merits.

Sorry for the spelling errors.

Re: How Many Senators Would Have Voted Otherwise?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why is this important?

[/ QUOTE ]
1. Because as a standalone it would help identify those politians that poker players could try to vote out of office.

2. By the deceptive practice it aids politians in obsfucating issues to help divide the American people and make it harder for the people to realize how the Government intrudes on individual freedoms.

3. This is only one issue of many that has eroded your individual rights over your lifetime.

Re: How Many Senators Would Have Voted Otherwise?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why is this important?

[/ QUOTE ]
1. Because as a standalone it would help identify those politians that poker players could try to vote out of office.

2. By the deceptive practice it aids politians in obsfucating issues to help divide the American people and make it harder for the people to realize how the Government intrudes on individual freedoms.

3. This is only one issue of many that has eroded your individual rights over your lifetime.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but none of that matters. The system works the way it works and can't be changed. We have to work the system, not spout off "its aint right", because no one cares that it isn't right.

We have to put an effective lobby in place, it has to be the player's lobby, not the sites.

We need a leader. Of course, none of the management here is going to step up so we better start looking elsewhere.

The solution is simple, as players, we go to the Congress, hat in hand, and ask them to regulate the industry for our protection. Dang, this ain't rocket science. I thought you guys were expert thinkers.

Re: How Many Senators Would Have Voted Otherwise?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's important to clarify when you say it would not pass whether it would pass if it got voted on. My first reply assumed that the holds and whatever other means in place to stop the bill were overcome and the bill came to a vote. If this were the case, you would be hard pressed to argue that it would not pass.

[/ QUOTE ]
We can't complain about the tactics used to pass the bill if they were only used to prevent other tactics to prevent its passage.

but if it had been debated on its merits then sensible ammendments may have been considered. That may have made matters better or worse from our perspective but at least it would have been accountable.

chez

Re: How Many Senators Would Have Voted Otherwise?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why is this important? What's important is that we move on and try to figure out a solution to this whole thing, not think what coulda been and was.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its important as it will show how large the task is to get this reversed. Its is hard enough to get anything through that is pro gambling, even in the UK where they were trying to be sensible the plans were scaled back under press/anti gambling lobby pressure, where everyone has the will to get it done.

I suspect this has been a big wakeup call to a lot of younger US people who hadnt realised what their government is like at the moment and the worrying trend a lot of the policies have over there, as well as the way the US acts to the rest of the world.

However most of this is probably more for the politics forum.

One of the interesting things about this has been the reaction after the event, a lot of pissed off players who did nothing while the horse was getting loose and has now bolted. But seem to want forign based companies and politicians to catch the horse, bring it back and fix the door for them.

Its a lesson folks you need to protect your rights and get involved as soon as any potential threat to your liberties comes along.

Re: How Many Senators Would Have Voted Otherwise?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think it is important to know what the vote would have been if the internet bill stood alone.

[/ QUOTE ]
Suppose it would have passed unanimously.

That wouldn't make it a wise or just law.

Re: How Many Senators Would Have Voted Otherwise?
 

Bottom line is that if this legislation was brought up for a vote in the Senate, it would pass with a similar ratio as the House did.

As much as people here don't like it, the fact remains politicians and many people across the country believe that "banning internet gambling" is the right thing to do.

Re: How Many Senators Would Have Voted Otherwise?
 

"Suppose it would have passed unanimously.

That wouldn't make it a wise or just law."

Actually that would increase the chances that it was. But the reason I said it was important was because a lot of people are implying that most senators didn't even want this prohibition. Whether that is true or not would determine future strategy.

Re: How Many Senators Would Have Voted Otherwise?
 

It's not binary. Mr K could make the list better than I, but it's better described as a partial order on the following and more. I tried to put it in order:

Yes and I'm willing to fight for it
Yes and I got money to say yes
Yes
Yes because my Party leader wants it
Sure, because I'm getting something in exchange
Ok, but not worth pushing to get to the floor
Could go either way. What are you offering?
Yes because everyone else is voting yes
Abstain
Nay
Nay and I'll argue against it
Nay and I'll filibuster or place a hold
Nay and I'll filibuster and place a hold

Re: How Many Senators Would Have Voted Otherwise?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Totally irrelevant. Each sesion there might be hundreds of potential bills floating around, most of which woulld pass if they reached the floor. Especially in an election year, especially the day of adjorment.

But these bills never see the floor because of the process that exists to prevent, or at least, reduce the likelyhood of, politically motivated measures or frivilous matters from becoming law.

How could senators vote against the port bill? Give me a break.

No, it does not matter at all if this bill would have passed on its on, the fact is that it never reached the floor on its own merits.

Sorry for the spelling errors.

[/ QUOTE ]

So it makes no difference to you/us if all senators are for prohibiting internet gambling, some are and some are not, or a few are or most are? It makes no difference to us which senators support bans on internet gambling and which senators are against it?

That seems to be a very odd way of looking at the issue to me. Please explain the merits of looking at the issue that way (it is of no importance which and how many senators are for banning internet gambling) as opposed to understanding who is and who isn't, or estimates of how many are or are not. I am waiting for you to explain the virtues of your perspective.

Re: How Many Senators Would Have Voted Otherwise?
 

[ QUOTE ]
"Suppose it would have passed unanimously.

That wouldn't make it a wise or just law."

Actually that would increase the chances that it was. But the reason I said it was important was because a lot of people are implying that most senators didn't even want this prohibition. Whether that is true or not would determine future strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]

My impression/opinion is that internet gambling is, for most senators, an unimportant issue, and that many of them would have voted, had it reached the floor, based on politicial expediency. Unfortunately, this is bad for poker, because in quick soundbite world, anti-poker wins. Poker gets lumped in with gambling, 'think of the children' is a powerful phrase, whether it applies or not, Leach can say something about about terrorists and money laundering and scare people on the fence. Whether the overall argument is incoherent doesn't matter because the soundbites are good, and once the bill is going to pass anyway, many congressman will vote on these type of issues with the winning side rather than later be branded as an opponent of whatever catchphrase version of the legislation comes to define it in the public eye. It is always easier for a politician to say "we did something about X" (or a campaigning politician to say "the Congress did something about X, and my opponent voted no"), when X is a bad piece of some larger issue than to explain the complexities of a balanced overall response. Campaign commercials and news clips are only so long.

Also, on these secondary issues, I think it is much more likely that congressmen will just vote with their Party leadership, rather than foirm an independent opinion. There are way too many minor issues for them to become really concerned with each one, voting with the Party must be an easy default on the ones they don't care/know much about.

Re: How Many Senators Would Have Voted Otherwise?
 

It would have passed but a larger number of Democrats would have voted against it.

Re: How Many Senators Would Have Voted Otherwise?
 

[ QUOTE ]

So it makes no difference to you/us if all senators are for prohibiting internet gambling, some are and some are not, or a few are or most are? It makes no difference to us which senators support bans on internet gambling and which senators are against it?

[/ QUOTE ]

bkholdem,

His perspective accounts for the fact that there are two steps:

(1) Get it to the floor in a given form
(2) Vote

(Step 1) is done by only the most determined, and when done right, as by Frist, it makes Step 2 a nonissue. This is why pork passes that would normally be voted down 93-7.

As far as the OP, I think I see what he's getting at, and I think it's a given that the direct approach, a tidal wave of popularity, won't work.

Re: How Many Senators Would Have Voted Otherwise?
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's not binary. Mr K could make the list better than I, but it's better described as a partial order on the following and more. I tried to put it in order:

Yes and I'm willing to fight for it
Yes and I got money to say yes
Yes
Yes because my Party leader wants it
Sure, because I'm getting something in exchange
Ok, but not worth pushing to get to the floor
Could go either way. What are you offering?
Yes because everyone else is voting yes
Abstain
Nay
Nay and I'll argue against it
Nay and I'll filibuster or place a hold
Nay and I'll filibuster and place a hold

[/ QUOTE ]

It also seems there is a public/private distinction. You have "Nay and I'll place a hold," but I bet there are also a few "Yea if it comes to the floor, because officially voting yea is best for me politically, but please place a hold someone. (because this is a waste of the senate's time/a bad idea/I'd rather it were addressed in a different political climate (when leadership will phrase the soundbites differently)).

Probably a subset of yes because everyone is voting yes.

Re: How Many Senators Would Have Voted Otherwise?
 

I don't think it would have easily passed on its own. I tend to doubt it would have even made it out of the starting gate since it really is such a minor item (that is, I don't think anyone would have really cared enough about it to push it up to the floor).

The reason I don't think it would have passed easily is because there are a large number of voters who would have phoned and written in against it, and I think there are a number of republicans who actually don't see merit in this, though I could be wrong.

At any rate, I am still waiting to see what it actually does. I am not in the alarmist camp. I would hope that the major poker sites would be working hard on a protocol to ensure minors don't gamble and taxes can be collected in the US. Perhaps a gaming fee and monies deposited in person (which is not as cumbersome as it sounds, just set up arrangements with the big check cashing chains would probably work).

I think if the industry can present a plan that protects minors from gambling and shows how the government will garner tax revenue, they are almost home. Especially if the current law proves to be ineffective, and/or if sates still have sway over the issue (i.e. if a state could legalize internet gambling, and presumably garner some revenue from it, then it could easily happen I think).

Oh well, I am not a poly sci type guy but a bit of an optomist, so I am probably just spewing nonsense. Seems to me that there are plenty of ways things can work themselves out favorably.

Re: How Many Senators Would Have Voted Otherwise?
 

Some guy got something banned that almost no one cares about (trans fats in NY) with a small media campain that featured full page newspaper advertisements and such.

Yes this would have passed the senate as the hand was played. However getting them to fold the hand would have been easy if it was played correctly.

Re: How Many Senators Would Have Voted Otherwise?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The reason I don't think it would have passed easily is because there are a large number of voters who would have phoned and written in against it, and I think there are a number of republicans who actually don't see merit in this, though I could be wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lots of people phoned in against the bill when it was under consideration in the House, and yet it passed easily with broad bipartisan support.

Re: How Many Senators Would Have Voted Otherwise?
 

This is really a non issue to most Senators, the key is the carve outs and placing holds on bills before they come to a vote. What if a bill was in place to ban lotteries or ban placing bets on horse racing. Do you believe most Senators are for gambling and placing bets in general...probably not but all you need is a few to lobby for a carve out.

Re: How Many Senators Would Have Voted Otherwise?
 

I don't know what the count of the current Senate would have been if the bill stood on its own, but historically the Senate has passed or favorably reported Internet Gaming bills out of committee.

105th Congress - Kyl bill S 474 passed by a vote of 90 to 10
106th Congress - Kyl bill S 692 passed by the senate

Since 1997, Kyl has brought up legislation in the Senate. In nearly every case, he has received democrat cosponsors for his bills.

Once this issue cleared the House, it was really only time that was on our side as the Senate clearly would have voted to pass legislation on Internet Gambling.

Re: How Many Senators Would Have Voted Otherwise?
 

[ QUOTE ]
But the reason I said it was important was because a lot of people are implying that most senators didn't even want this prohibition. Whether that is true or not would determine future strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that most Senators did not know or care enough about the issue to really want the prohibition, but also saw little or no reason to actively oppose it.

The authors cleverly wrote the bill so that it did not sound like big brother trying to legislate what you do in the privacy of your home. They framed it as stopping the international flow of funds used for activities that the average person probably vaguely considers of questionable morality and legality.

The bottom line is that a vocal minority wanted the bill for many different reasons, and few if any Senators saw any political upside to opposing it. Briefly, the tail wagged the dog, and the bill was passed through the inertia of the majority.

Online poker is tarred with the vice brush. Like booze, smoking, B&M gambling, etc., virtually no politician will be actively for it on principle, but will publically posture as tolerating it from the standpoint of personal adult freedom and as a painless source of revenue.

Re: How Many Senators Would Have Voted Otherwise?
 

This bill was not high priority at all in the Senate as a stand alone. Also, I think what angers most of us is the principle at which this was snuck onto an unrelated, yet high priority bill.

Re: How Many Senators Would Have Voted Otherwise?
 

[ QUOTE ]
While everyone is making a big deal about how the issue was brought to a vote, I think it is important to know what the vote would have been if the internet bill stood alone. My impression is that it would still have passed easily. Am I right? If so that is important to know.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think so. Most of them don't care about this stuff and for the democrats this could have turn into an EASY issue about personal freedom and rights, government doesn't have the right to invade privacy, etc etc. and generally tap into alot of the middle of the road people who enjoy poker as a pasttime, younger voters who obviously are all into the trend of online poker/big tourneys, etc.

It's stupidly pessimistic to just say it would have passed anyway, really an assumption built around this communities insecurities. It's the year 2006 people; everybody in the burbs plays poker in their garages now. You aren't basement nerds or societal rejects.

Re: How Many Senators Would Have Voted Otherwise?
 

[ QUOTE ]
While everyone is making a big deal about how the issue was brought to a vote, I think it is important to know what the vote would have been if the internet bill stood alone. My impression is that it would still have passed easily. Am I right? If so that is important to know.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it is very unlikely that it would have passed easily, because if it stood on its own it never would have reached the floor.

Several Senators of BOTH parties apparently had holds on the legislation that would have prevented it moving on its own. The fact that the legislation did not reach the floor in stand-alone form by 9/29, the last legislative day before the lame duck session after the elections, leads one to believe that the holds were still in place.

In any case, Sen. Reid was considering filibustering the entire Port Security bill because of the gaming provision before deciding against this strategy (probably wisely from a political perspective). If he was thinking about taking this step, it seems clear that if the measure was standing on its own he would have set-up a filibuster.

I have little doubt that the majority of Senators, consisting of both parties (though a higher % of Republicans) would vote for the gaming provision on its own. But the important question is not whether the bill would have recieved a majority of votes in a vaccum, but whether the bill in stand-alone form would have reached the floor for a vote at all. And the answer to that appears to be no.

Re: How Many Senators Would Have Voted Otherwise?
 

It wouldn't have been brought up for a vote, as the online poker lobby would have kept it tied up in committee.

If it did go to a vote in the Senate, it is probable but not certain it would pass. In terms of voter reaction, Senators offend people either way. There wouold probably also be special interest pressure both ways.

Re: How Many Senators Would Have Voted Otherwise?
 

As a stand alone bill it wouldn't have been passed in the Senate, the American Gaming Association is so strong as a lobby group in the Senate that given their revised position on regulating Internet gambling it would not have gone through.

Re: How Many Senators Would Have Voted Otherwise?
 

[ QUOTE ]
We need a leader. Of course, none of the management here is going to step up so we better start looking elsewhere.

[/ QUOTE ]
The management here, as far as I can tell, make their living as authors, publishers, consultants to b&m casinos, and b&m poker players. How does that make them the voice of online poker?

Re: How Many Senators Would Have Voted Otherwise?
 

[ QUOTE ]
In any case, Sen. Reid was considering filibustering the entire Port Security bill because of the gaming provision before deciding against this strategy (probably wisely from a political perspective).

[/ QUOTE ]

I want to know your source for this claim. I'm very skeptical.

Re: How Many Senators Would Have Voted Otherwise?
 

If this bill came to a vote by itself, it would pass easily, say 80 - 20. There would be four groups voting for the bill:

- The religious fundamentalists who believe that all gambling should be illegal (Jon Kyl and many others from the South)

- The nanny-state Senators who want to protect us from everything (e.g. Diane Feinstein)

- Voting for the measure because it will help them politically (e.g. Frist)

- Voting for the measure for [political] party reasons

Although I'm no expert in this like Berge or Mr. K, I'd expect the first three groups to total over 50. And this points out the problems we will have in getting this measure reversed. There are many Senators who believe that all gambling should be illegal. There are many other Senators, including both California Senators, who want to protect us from ourselves. I can't see any way that a measure "carving out" poker would pass the Senate by itself. Indeed, the only way I can see something like that passing is by attaching it to some must-pass bill.

Eventually, Congress will see that Internet gambling could bring in hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenues, and that's when I see it being legalized (and taxed and regulated).

Re: How Many Senators Would Have Voted Otherwise?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I want to know your source for this claim. I'm very skeptical.

[/ QUOTE ]

The 9/29 Washington Post:

"Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), whose home-state casinos are split over the Internet gambling measure, briefly weighed scuttling the bill over the provision before agreeing to go along, aides said."

Washington Post Article

Re: How Many Senators Would Have Voted Otherwise?
 

Wow, OK, I'll take that. Thanks for the link.

Re: How Many Senators Would Have Voted Otherwise?
 

DS,

you should write a letter to the New York Times (somewhat apolitical) simply describing how poker is different from games against the house. You can give some math, analogies, etc. The Times loves publishing "guest columns" from professors, authors, etc. It would be a terrific step in educating the public on poker.