The coronavirus relief bill. Why no vote?

[DinoR]

@Urbanredneck

Ok, they seperated. They can still have a recorded vote. Yes, they shortened the time. Well not actually. They push a button which records their vote and those are electronically tabulated so no, it doesnt really shorten the time.

House rules require a minimum of a 15 minute voting period unless it immediately follows another vote. This didn’t. So yes it did actually shorten the time they had to be together by about 15 minutes.

[septimus]

@Urbanredneck

How do we know they would be honest. I guess you trust your politicians more than I do.

No, I would prefer a recorded vote.

The bill passed by an overwhelming majority. On a recorded vote, the only reason to say ‘Nay’ would be to openly take a stance — it would have had no effect on whether the measure passed.

Think again about your question. You ask your Representative “If there’d been a recorded vote which way would you have voted?” (Reverse Nay and Yea in the following if you prefer; the effect is the same.) Suppose he answers “Nay.” You wonder if he’s being dishonest; i.e. that he would have instead voted “Yea” had the vote been recorded. But the purpose of his recorded vote would be the same as telling you how he’d have voted!

On votes which will not be close, Congressmen either vote to please their constituents or according to their conscience. But demonstrating the courage or character to vote his conscience is itself intended to please constituents!

(Out of curiosity, how would you have liked your Congressman to have voted on this bill?)

[Fiveyearlurker]

@That_Don_Guy

Except that every person who did not join Massie in calling for a recorded vote can just as easily be branded as being complacent in the “$2 trillion Wall Street bailout.”

Of course, that assumes that anybody running against any of these Representatives tries that tactic. Considering how much support it had, I would think that such claims would fall on deaf ears, if not backfire on the person making the claim.

Well, now Massie can be in an ad for having caused exposureto Congress:

"
.@NydiaVelazquez
says she’s been diagnosed with a presumed case of coronavirus

She was in the room with top House leaders @SpeakerPelosi
& @GOPLeader
on Friday

She & other N.Y.-ers came to vote after @RepThomasMassie
threatened to hold up relief package"

[dalej42]

@That_Don_Guy

Except that every person who did not join Massie in calling for a recorded vote can just as easily be branded as being complacent in the “$2 trillion Wall Street bailout.”

Of course, that assumes that anybody running against any of these Representatives tries that tactic. Considering how much support it had, I would think that such claims would fall on deaf ears, if not backfire on the person making the claim.

It’s still a lot harder to run ads against a non recorded vote. And I’m not worried about 2020 elections but I could see purity tests from the right and left a few years down the line.

[JRDelirious]

BTW the House now is announcing it will not meet again in Whole until 20 April, unless another urgent vote is required.

@dalej42

It’s still a lot harder to run ads against a non recorded vote. And I’m not worried about 2020 elections but I could see purity tests from the right and left a few years down the line.

Yep. Like with the Iraq authorization of force, which at least among Senators later running haunted a bunch of people. Which BTW is also why you want to bundle the bill to throw something to both sides, that way only the purest of the pure (or the wingnuttiest of the wingnuts) will make a stand.

[bobot]

@bobot

Your thread title is misleading. There was a vote.

@Urbanredneck

A voice vote. Not recorded one.

Yes, that’s why the thread title is misleading.