You're doing a bang-up job, Texas legislature

[John_Mace]

@mhendo

Sure, but isn’t that part of the general critique here? It’s not just anger at the people pushing the absentees’ buttons; it’s more general anger at the apparent apathy or irresponsibility of legislators who are paid to, you know, legislate.

But there’s no evidence that votes are being cast against the wishes of any the legislators. As long as they’re OK with it, then they are legislating.

[Otto]

@El Zagna

One thing the story didn’t make clear was whether or not there was an agreement between the absent legislators and their desk mates on how to vote on a particular bill. Let’s say Senator Aardvark has to be away from his desk for two hours to meet with his concubine, or to get chemotherapy - whatever - and he tells his desk mate, Senator Bozo, that if the vote on SB 123 comes up to please vote “Nay” for him. That’s a bit different than having Sen. Bozo vote however he wants on any open desk.

Not that that justifies the behavior, but it does make it a wee bit more palatable.

Shit is unpalatable no matter how much sugar it’s coated in.

[mhendo]

@John Mace

But there’s no evidence that votes are being cast against the wishes of any the legislators. As long as they’re OK with it, then they are legislating.

I guess it depends if “OK with it” means actually supporting the votes cast in their behalf, or being too apathetic to care one way or the other.

Also, as the news story makes clear, the behavior is contrary to the procedures for voting that the legislature itself lays down and votes on at the beginning of each session. At least when a regular citizen breaks a rule of conduct like this, they can argue with some validity that they could not have been expected to know about some arcane rule; the legislators who make the rules have no such excuse. They should also be held to a higher standard.

If there is, indeed, a valid reason for allowing one member to cast a vote for another member, then why the explicit language forbidding it? If they changed the rules to allow this sort of vote-allocating behavior, then some people might disagree with the new rule, but at least the legislators wouldn’t look like a bunch of idiots and hypocrites.

[Randy_Seltzer]

@John Mace

But there’s no evidence that votes are being cast against the wishes of any the legislators. As long as they’re OK with it, then they are legislating.

You’ll note that there’s also no evidence that any votes are being cast at all. The buttons being pushed could all be “abstain.”

It’s not likely, but what if the voting system is designed so that you can’t “close out” one voting session until something is registered from each seat. How would it look any different if the Speaker said, “Well, all present representitaves’ votes are in, but we can’t move on until all the absent representitaves’ votes have been registered. Can everyone go and hit the ‘abstain’ buttons on your neighbors’ desks? Kthxby.”

The sensationalist news crew certainly wouldn’t suggest anything like this when they could hint that it’s simply a free-for-all.

[John_Mace]

@mhendo

I guess it depends if “OK with it” means actually supporting the votes cast in their behalf, or being too apathetic to care one way or the other.

Also, as the news story makes clear, the behavior is contrary to the procedures for voting that the legislature itself lays down and votes on at the beginning of each session. At least when a regular citizen breaks a rule of conduct like this, they can argue with some validity that they could not have been expected to know about some arcane rule; the legislators who make the rules have no such excuse. They should also be held to a higher standard.

If there is, indeed, a valid reason for allowing one member to cast a vote for another member, then why the explicit language forbidding it? If they changed the rules to allow this sort of vote-allocating behavior, then some people might disagree with the new rule, but at least the legislators wouldn’t look like a bunch of idiots and hypocrites.

When I listened to the newscast, they said it was “against the rules”, but only in the sense that the Legislature can punish someone for doing it. Apparently they choose not to.

[Rhubarb]

<snip>

@mhendo

but at least the legislators wouldn’t look like a bunch of idiots and hypocrites.

Now you just wait one gol-danged minute there. This is TEXAS you’re talkin’ about that way. Looking like idiots and hypocrites is pretty much all our legislature has going for it.

[elucidator]

Hell, if that’s the dumbest thing they done this week, been a damned good week!

[DesertDog]

Some years ago, shortly after the California legislature passed the mandatory seatbelts law, a reporter for the California Journal stationed himself outside the exit of the parking garage the legislators and high-level staffers use (Not the peons nor – God-forbid – the public) and marked off for a day, the number of drivers departing who had their belts fastened. The compliance rate was about 20%. The compliance rate for the rest of the public at the time was about 50%. Clearly they felt they can lay down rules for the rest of us, but need not be bothered to follow those rules themselves. Why would Texas legislators feel any different?

[Rhubarb]

@DesertDog

Some years ago, shortly after the California legislature passed the mandatory seatbelts law, a reporter for the California Journal stationed himself outside the exit of the parking garage the legislators and high-level staffers use (Not the peons nor – God-forbid – the public) and marked off for a day, the number of drivers departing who had their belts fastened. The compliance rate was about 20%. The compliance rate for the rest of the public at the time was about 50%. Clearly they felt they can lay down rules for the rest of us, but need not be bothered to follow those rules themselves. Why would Texas legislators feel any different?

It is my heartfelt belief that no one ever makes a law to regulate their own behavior.

[Testy]

@bdgr

There are no Gays, Communists, or Sheep in Texas. This is Texas, Cattle Country…Gods Cattle Country…Gods Heterosexual Cattle Country.

bdgr

Thank you, made my entire morning. I can just hear John Wayne saying that!

Testy

[elucidator]

I take it you don’t know any Aggies.

[Testy]

@elucidator

I take it you don’t know any Aggies.

elucidator

Uhhh, no. Would they be for, or against, marriages to gay, communist sheep?

Testy

[Siam_Sam]

Must … not … bitch … about … Texas … any … more … than … already … have.