It's an interesting idea, but we'd need to be able to account for liars. It'd be easy to vote one way and claim publicly that you voted another, and the only way to disprove this would be to de-anonymize the votes, which would destroy the whole point.
This is brilliant and it should be applied to *all* elected officials, *all* of the time. Increased transparency in government is the worst thing that has happened in America in my lifetime (born in ‘79).
Scanning through the comments I haven't seen anyone bring up this potential outcome, and I'm curious if someone with a better understanding of House/Senate rules could illuminate:
Let's say we had Anonymous Congress, and it's clear what is coming up for a vote during this period. Could a radical wing of one of the parties decide to just not show up? With a large enough voting block you could either A) Stop a quorum and kill the bill outright or B) Make it clear(er) who crossed party lines and voted with the other side.
I can see that becoming the new symbol of party loyalty. Did you even participate in Anonymous Congress? Also, if you only have about 65% of either chamber even participating in the vote, it will be seen (fairly or unfairly) as less legitimate in the eyes of the public. And you know the radical wing that initially created this issue would have no problem attacking it on these grounds.
Maybe there's something I'm missing that would make this impossible. Please clarify for me if so!
I like the idea, but would make one small change to it: the Vice President, as President of the Senate, rather than the President as the third leader. The President has no proper constitutional place in the Congress, but the Vice President does. Same result, but respecting the Separation of Powers.
i think we are underestimating the desire for activists and engaged folks to know how members voted on a particular vote. They would not abide a system that did not allow them to know who was on their side and who opposed their issue. also members themselves on the extremes would be quick to expose their positions and also the positions of other members in the conference.
Ben, you are a sophomoric quibbler. If you want to argue with my assertion that the people aren’t getting what they want go argue with Matt. That is the very point behind his dreams of a government not answerable to the people, or an anonymous congress. We all agree with the assertion, and I don’t have the energy any more to prosecute arguments that have to start with “I think therefore I am…”
Look, I like this idea but if we take the logic seriously it's really just a statement that voters have too much direct influence over who gets elected. After all, you aren't proposing this to shield legislators from the leadership but from their most extreme constituents.
Or, more particularly, that ideological voters who punish compromise have too much influence. Ok but if we take that idea seriously let's deal with the problem at the source so we don't need this problematic fix. Pick some number of the following:
0) Reinvigorate the founder's original ideas about indirect democracy and have senators and reps choosen by the elected local/state leaders.
1) Eliminate primaries in some fashion. Go IRV and just don't have any primaries or states can just refuse to host primary voting.
2) Repeal McCain-Feingold to minimize the importance of the small ideological donor. Or, if you dislike that and think it's constitutional, at least ban donations from outside the district.
3) If you won't do any of those then make primary voting somehow mandatory or pay people to do it or something to ensure its not the most crazy voters.
Look, I get that lots of these would be hard to pass but so is the proposal above and it doesn't even solve thd underlying problem!
I feel like this sort of system would be ripe for corruption. Folks not having to explain their votes makes doing it for a payout a lot easier. This is no for me. Sorry Ben.
I don't understand why you think this would "reduce partisan incentives." Members are concerned with the impact of their votes on (1) how constituents perceive them and (2) inside punishments / rewards from party members (e.g., primary challenges), party leadership (e.g., committee assignments, campaign funding) and lobbyists (e.g., campaign funding, future employment). Anonymity on important votes changes none of that. Constituents will perceive members as weak or cowardly if they do not reveal their votes (or dishonest if they lie about their votes and are found out), primary challengers will never stop bashing them with their "secret votes" that they cannot "prove" (if anything, this empowers extremists by giving them new and appealing campaign material), and both party leadership and lobbyists will insist on knowing how they will vote / did vote. This does not change any incentives for those players, it only changes the consequences of lying about a vote if you are an extremely convincing liar.
A better plan to change incentives might be "Seppuku Congress", in which the opposing party offers large cash grants, jobs, or financial security for the family of members who vote their consciences before committing ritual resignation. House Republicans are currently enacting a version of this, but it could be improved...
It's not just the take that's rushed here, but the editing too...painful to read. Even the headline idea of [a|A]nonymous Congress isn't consistently capitalized.
As others have noted, the bulk of this proposal seems easier to achieve simply by downgrading C-SPAN and other soapbox outlets. Finding ways to get important decisions back into metaphorical smoke-filled rooms is already a thing we know works decently well, as Matt wrote years ago in the original Secret Congress article. I think the danger of the full-bore Grant Anonyma system would be that it's a symmetrical weapon; it doesn't just give cover for freeing up popular bipartisan legislation, it also makes it easier to pass real wild stuff with minimal blowback. Just need to bribe that 20% by crook or by hook, and you're golden. The incentives to defect on secrecy would create this whole other shadow game of trying to infer who voted for what. (Or people could just leak such info directly to the media. Unless you intended to double-blind the voting, which...is a whole other step.)
I suspect a better solution would be to address gerrymandering and provide for ranked choice/multiple choice ballots to dilute the power of hyperengaged partisans from hijacking elections. That puts candidates closer to the will of the people they represent and diminishes threats of getting primaried. Then maybe throw in some rules that bring back pork barrel compromises so reps from districts that wouldn't approve of a vote can get a little governmental bribe to participate in a broader good.
We can combine this with what I call Metropolis Sampling Congress, where a bill that doesn’t pass has a nonzero likelihood of being enacted anyway, proportional to the vote ratio. Really keeping us out of local policy maxima.
I still maintain that immediately after the election, regardless of outcome, Biden should put out a statement explaining how government debt actually works, that money printed and never spent doesn't cause inflation, and that because Congress controls spending he would be required to take illegal action no matter what any time there is a debt ceiling crisis. Then direct the treasury to mint a septillion dollar platinum coin and tell congress to stop passing legislation without funding unless that's really what it wants to do.
How big is the Anonymous Congress leadership group? Is it POTUS, the Senate majority and minority leaders, and the House Speaker and minority leader? Or does it also include the House majority leader? Basically, is the group five or six people?
I realize this is admittedly half-baked, but there is directly relevant history here that ought not be neglected. Before the early 1970s, the House did much more in the Committee of the Whole, and it was very common to take teller votes—yes, submitting little stubs of paper, anonymously. Many of the most important decisions were made in this way, with close and untraceable votes, and then final passage votes would tend to be very large numbers, as members put themselves on the record so as to take credit.
There were a lot of good things about this, and I’d like to see it brought back. But it’s not like the transparency reformers had no valid complaints. Attendance was often poor. Members could serve interests without any record.
The main thing we’d need to do to move back to this model is resuscitate floor action as a way of legislating. Right now it’s pretty completely dead.
Unfortunately, "before the early 70s" is another way of saying "before the rise of 24/7 cable news, social media, SuperPACs and the flesh-eating scrutiny all of that entails."
We actually get lots of wonderful examples of pre-1970 voting each year. And the results continue to be fascinating, and I'd argue, positive.
Even in the past couple years, we've had secret votes on renaming military bases (removing names of confederate officers), we've had secret votes on speakers in the Republican caucus, we've had secret votes on the sanctioning of Liz Cheney.
Continuously we find data that broadly corresponds to what we saw pre-1970. The secret votes are less unanimous (often indicative of fear) and generally appear to avoid some form of tyrannical pressure. Going back a little further, we've had secret votes in the 1990s on environmental legislation (resulting the passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments - perhaps the strongest and most beneficial environmental legislation ever) as well as the 1986 tax reforms (embraced by both the right and left as good law).
So before you throw in the towel, check the data - and the Constitution, which surprisingly endorses secrecy for any and all congressional actions.
Is this something that could be done with normal house rules changes or would it require a constitutional amendment?
It's an interesting idea, but we'd need to be able to account for liars. It'd be easy to vote one way and claim publicly that you voted another, and the only way to disprove this would be to de-anonymize the votes, which would destroy the whole point.
This is brilliant and it should be applied to *all* elected officials, *all* of the time. Increased transparency in government is the worst thing that has happened in America in my lifetime (born in ‘79).
Scanning through the comments I haven't seen anyone bring up this potential outcome, and I'm curious if someone with a better understanding of House/Senate rules could illuminate:
Let's say we had Anonymous Congress, and it's clear what is coming up for a vote during this period. Could a radical wing of one of the parties decide to just not show up? With a large enough voting block you could either A) Stop a quorum and kill the bill outright or B) Make it clear(er) who crossed party lines and voted with the other side.
I can see that becoming the new symbol of party loyalty. Did you even participate in Anonymous Congress? Also, if you only have about 65% of either chamber even participating in the vote, it will be seen (fairly or unfairly) as less legitimate in the eyes of the public. And you know the radical wing that initially created this issue would have no problem attacking it on these grounds.
Maybe there's something I'm missing that would make this impossible. Please clarify for me if so!
I like the idea, but would make one small change to it: the Vice President, as President of the Senate, rather than the President as the third leader. The President has no proper constitutional place in the Congress, but the Vice President does. Same result, but respecting the Separation of Powers.
i think we are underestimating the desire for activists and engaged folks to know how members voted on a particular vote. They would not abide a system that did not allow them to know who was on their side and who opposed their issue. also members themselves on the extremes would be quick to expose their positions and also the positions of other members in the conference.
And Gym Jordan and MTG would blab their heads off, whether what they were saying were true or false.
Ben, you are a sophomoric quibbler. If you want to argue with my assertion that the people aren’t getting what they want go argue with Matt. That is the very point behind his dreams of a government not answerable to the people, or an anonymous congress. We all agree with the assertion, and I don’t have the energy any more to prosecute arguments that have to start with “I think therefore I am…”
Look, I like this idea but if we take the logic seriously it's really just a statement that voters have too much direct influence over who gets elected. After all, you aren't proposing this to shield legislators from the leadership but from their most extreme constituents.
Or, more particularly, that ideological voters who punish compromise have too much influence. Ok but if we take that idea seriously let's deal with the problem at the source so we don't need this problematic fix. Pick some number of the following:
0) Reinvigorate the founder's original ideas about indirect democracy and have senators and reps choosen by the elected local/state leaders.
1) Eliminate primaries in some fashion. Go IRV and just don't have any primaries or states can just refuse to host primary voting.
2) Repeal McCain-Feingold to minimize the importance of the small ideological donor. Or, if you dislike that and think it's constitutional, at least ban donations from outside the district.
3) If you won't do any of those then make primary voting somehow mandatory or pay people to do it or something to ensure its not the most crazy voters.
Look, I get that lots of these would be hard to pass but so is the proposal above and it doesn't even solve thd underlying problem!
I feel like this sort of system would be ripe for corruption. Folks not having to explain their votes makes doing it for a payout a lot easier. This is no for me. Sorry Ben.
I don't understand why you think this would "reduce partisan incentives." Members are concerned with the impact of their votes on (1) how constituents perceive them and (2) inside punishments / rewards from party members (e.g., primary challenges), party leadership (e.g., committee assignments, campaign funding) and lobbyists (e.g., campaign funding, future employment). Anonymity on important votes changes none of that. Constituents will perceive members as weak or cowardly if they do not reveal their votes (or dishonest if they lie about their votes and are found out), primary challengers will never stop bashing them with their "secret votes" that they cannot "prove" (if anything, this empowers extremists by giving them new and appealing campaign material), and both party leadership and lobbyists will insist on knowing how they will vote / did vote. This does not change any incentives for those players, it only changes the consequences of lying about a vote if you are an extremely convincing liar.
A better plan to change incentives might be "Seppuku Congress", in which the opposing party offers large cash grants, jobs, or financial security for the family of members who vote their consciences before committing ritual resignation. House Republicans are currently enacting a version of this, but it could be improved...
It's not just the take that's rushed here, but the editing too...painful to read. Even the headline idea of [a|A]nonymous Congress isn't consistently capitalized.
As others have noted, the bulk of this proposal seems easier to achieve simply by downgrading C-SPAN and other soapbox outlets. Finding ways to get important decisions back into metaphorical smoke-filled rooms is already a thing we know works decently well, as Matt wrote years ago in the original Secret Congress article. I think the danger of the full-bore Grant Anonyma system would be that it's a symmetrical weapon; it doesn't just give cover for freeing up popular bipartisan legislation, it also makes it easier to pass real wild stuff with minimal blowback. Just need to bribe that 20% by crook or by hook, and you're golden. The incentives to defect on secrecy would create this whole other shadow game of trying to infer who voted for what. (Or people could just leak such info directly to the media. Unless you intended to double-blind the voting, which...is a whole other step.)
I suspect a better solution would be to address gerrymandering and provide for ranked choice/multiple choice ballots to dilute the power of hyperengaged partisans from hijacking elections. That puts candidates closer to the will of the people they represent and diminishes threats of getting primaried. Then maybe throw in some rules that bring back pork barrel compromises so reps from districts that wouldn't approve of a vote can get a little governmental bribe to participate in a broader good.
We can combine this with what I call Metropolis Sampling Congress, where a bill that doesn’t pass has a nonzero likelihood of being enacted anyway, proportional to the vote ratio. Really keeping us out of local policy maxima.
I still maintain that immediately after the election, regardless of outcome, Biden should put out a statement explaining how government debt actually works, that money printed and never spent doesn't cause inflation, and that because Congress controls spending he would be required to take illegal action no matter what any time there is a debt ceiling crisis. Then direct the treasury to mint a septillion dollar platinum coin and tell congress to stop passing legislation without funding unless that's really what it wants to do.
How big is the Anonymous Congress leadership group? Is it POTUS, the Senate majority and minority leaders, and the House Speaker and minority leader? Or does it also include the House majority leader? Basically, is the group five or six people?
I realize this is admittedly half-baked, but there is directly relevant history here that ought not be neglected. Before the early 1970s, the House did much more in the Committee of the Whole, and it was very common to take teller votes—yes, submitting little stubs of paper, anonymously. Many of the most important decisions were made in this way, with close and untraceable votes, and then final passage votes would tend to be very large numbers, as members put themselves on the record so as to take credit.
There were a lot of good things about this, and I’d like to see it brought back. But it’s not like the transparency reformers had no valid complaints. Attendance was often poor. Members could serve interests without any record.
The main thing we’d need to do to move back to this model is resuscitate floor action as a way of legislating. Right now it’s pretty completely dead.
Unfortunately, "before the early 70s" is another way of saying "before the rise of 24/7 cable news, social media, SuperPACs and the flesh-eating scrutiny all of that entails."
We actually get lots of wonderful examples of pre-1970 voting each year. And the results continue to be fascinating, and I'd argue, positive.
Even in the past couple years, we've had secret votes on renaming military bases (removing names of confederate officers), we've had secret votes on speakers in the Republican caucus, we've had secret votes on the sanctioning of Liz Cheney.
Continuously we find data that broadly corresponds to what we saw pre-1970. The secret votes are less unanimous (often indicative of fear) and generally appear to avoid some form of tyrannical pressure. Going back a little further, we've had secret votes in the 1990s on environmental legislation (resulting the passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments - perhaps the strongest and most beneficial environmental legislation ever) as well as the 1986 tax reforms (embraced by both the right and left as good law).
So before you throw in the towel, check the data - and the Constitution, which surprisingly endorses secrecy for any and all congressional actions.