How Many Senators Would Have Voted Otherwise?

[TomBrooks]

[ 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.

[jimmytrick]

[ 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.

[chezlaw]

[ 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

[daveymck]

[ 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.

[maurile]

[ 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.

[Berge20]

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.

[David Sklansky]

"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.

[disjunction]

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

[bkholdem]

[ 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.

[LearnedfromTV]

[ 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.