How Many Senators Would Have Voted Otherwise? - Page 8

George Rice · #71 10-06-2006, 08:30 PM

[ 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 ]

It may have passed, but probably not this year. It would have to be referred to the banking committee and possibly others for hearings and so forth. And they would go through this every year it's brought up. It's possible to never come to a vote if the committee doesn't act on it. (I don't know if this already happened, but I haven't heard about it).

Then there's the issue of amendments, etc, which never had the opportunity to be offered.

tuccotrading · #72 10-08-2006, 08:01 AM

Huge Favorite to pass on it's own.

Voting for The Bill is viewed as a plus by most Senators.

That is one reason Frist rushed it to a vote before the upcoming Congressional Elections.

Dhaa..

Huge Favorite to pass on it's own.

The Bill is viwed as a plus for any who vote for it, therefore Frist rushed it before the upcoming Congressional Elections

Dhaa..

peritonlogon · #73 10-08-2006, 03:46 PM

I think that it never would have been proposed on it's own because this bill, as far as public opinion and political strategy go, is a lose-lose proposition and a vote for it on its own is something that many supporters of the bill (those who have not made it their pet issue) would not have felt comfotable making in the absence of a giant crowd, like 80 or more votes.

Why? this bill barely 'energizes the base' if at all. "Values voters" are more interested in reproductive rights, marriage, stem cell research, regulating nudity and the like. Howerver, their are a bunch of conservative one-issue, poker playing voters now, and many more who would or already do, simply view this type of legislation as one more example of Republicans abandoning traditional conservatism.

So, I think, on its own, this bill is fairly peripheral, but only alienates supporters which, now adays means, it either would never make it to the Senate floor, or it would be tacked onto something.

This is where the House differs from the Senate. The House will bring more marginal bills to the floor and vote on them, the Senate does what it can to avoid doing this.

Mr.K · #74 10-08-2006, 11:40 PM

[ 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 know I am coming in way after this discussion has come near a conclusion, but I thought I'd give an answer anyhow. I have not read the rest of the thread.

My understanding is that the bill likely would not have been able to come up for a standalone vote in the Senate on Sept. 29th due to holds. It remains to this day whose holds those were, but they were apparently still out there. Some holds related to horse racing apparently were dealt with and removed, but others remained. Now, these holds could've been defeated via cloture, and I think cloture would've easily passed, but the point was that the Senate never had the time needed to spend up to 30 hours (up to twice!) on cloture on such a small bill.

Since the holds remained, Frist and Co. used the SAFE Ports Act as a vehicle that could be used to jam the Internet gambling language through. Of course whoever was holding the gambling bill could also have held the SAFE Ports Act, but this would have exposed that member or group of members to extreme political pressure/bad press, plus I think everyone knew that Frist could've defeated holds easily with a cloture vote (60 votes required, and the SAFE Ports Act passed with unanimous support).

Purely as a thought experiment, if somehow the Internet gambling bill did come to the floor Sept. 29, and cloture was invoked on the motion to proceed and the bill itself, then I imagine final passage would've cleared with more than 90 votes. The beadth of support in the Senate would likely have been wider in the Senate than in the House -- reason being there are just more fringe members in the House in safe districts than can afford to do politically risky things like vote against regulation of Internet gambling.

So I don't know what this tells us, but I thought I'd give answering your question a whirl, David. Glad to see you engaging in this subject, and marshaling the 2+2 army to think critically about how to intelligently proceed from here.

Misfire · #75 10-08-2006, 11:51 PM

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is that? Popularity does nothing in determining wisdom or justice.

Mr.K · #76 10-09-2006, 01:11 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is that? Popularity does nothing in determining wisdom or justice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Certain characters in Plato's Republic might disagree.

cantac · #77 10-09-2006, 02:33 AM

Actually, they did attempt to get this bill passed alone. No, it wasn't "official", the senate won't bring a bill to vote if they don't already think it stands a chance of passing. There is an underground, unorganized system that exists to gather the opinions of every senator to determine, roughly, the overall chances of a bill passing if brought to vote. Briefly, if you do your research (I'm not going to lay references here, and I apologize, but this is over many months of follwing the news from various outlets), you will see that this bill, alone, would NOT have passed by itself if it made to senate.

I am actually disappointed in Mr. Sklansky's "from the guy" opinion. However, I've sure most of his gutshot decisions make up for this one over the years. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

~The Truth

StregaChess · #78 10-09-2006, 10:48 AM

I can't see it even coming up for a vote.

Senators are a higher breed on the evolutionary scale of pompous asses. There would be no easily discernable benefit to voting on this in either direction. A vote yes or no is still –EV and Senators if anything are good at staying away from issues they can’t leverage for their own gain.

omgwtf · #79 10-09-2006, 03:44 PM

As always, good analysis, Mr. K.

However, I think the question of whether it would have passed anyway obscures the larger and more troubling issue. The way this was passed denied us, as Americans, due process in determining the laws that govern us. There was no opportunity to vote or even debate the issue. It doesn't matter that it would have probably passed anyway; this law was passed in a manner that effectively bypassed our representative form of government. The fact that this was even possible should terrify every American, regardless of how they feel about the law.

Would it be OK to cancel the elections in the districts where one candidate has an insurmountable lead? Of course not, because the process of debating the issues and voting is more important than the outcome of the vote.

Losing our ability to play poker online (if that's what ultimately happens) pales in comparison to this abuse of power. If virtually any law can be passed by one person without vote or debate, isn't that a dictatorship? (I know I overstate it, but this law did cross that line.)

adios · #80 10-09-2006, 03:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I can't see it even coming up for a vote.

Senators are a higher breed on the evolutionary scale of pompous asses. There would be no easily discernable benefit to voting on this in either direction. A vote yes or no is still –EV and Senators if anything are good at staying away from issues they can’t leverage for their own gain.

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO this a fair point and one well worth considering.