From: B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU (Stephen Tice)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: How a Bill Becomes Law (The Art of the Plausible)
Date: 15 Apr 92 00:51:00 GMT

From: tom@ssd.csd.harris.com (Tom Horsley, 13 apr) provided:
|{How a Bill Becomes Law (a science fiction story)}
|(talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc)

I've elected to respond in only the .misc forum for now. If sufficient
interest ensues I'd be happy to move inside to the .theory discussion.
Tom Horsley's "citation" has a good merit.

|This is a summary describing how a bill becomes law. This material is
|excerpted from the 2010 edition of the book "Introduction to Civics"
|published by Prenhall-Tice.
|
|                         How a Bill Becomes Law

Mr. Horsley, thank you for providing this much needed public service,
(and welcome to the ranks of the "political pre-visionism"). Have you
noticed that, unlike the past, it's almost impossible to re-write the
future? ;-)

In present terms, let's see if this alternative participatory governance
system passes "the Art of the Plausible" test.

|
|Step 1: Introduce the bill.
|
|   Any citizen of the United States may introduce a bill simply by writing
|   it and loading a computer readable copy onto the pending federal
|   legislation database of the national public network.
|
|   Thousands of bills are introduced by ordinary citizens, lobbyists, and
|   legislators every day, and all of them are available for public scrutiny
|   and comment on the public network.
|

Why do I get a strong sense of deja-vu when I read Step 1 ?  :-)

  NPN -- national public network

  (Would folks actually donate for funding the archive site?)

But even if we were only to start a new newsgroup here to "reveiw"
currently pending public legislation, that would work for now.
The problem is getting summaries out of congress, who as "master
politicians" would no doubt be quite disdainful of the kibbutzing
of non-professionals.

Still, it sounds like we have the technology now.

|Step 2: Natural Selection.
|
|   Many bills are introduced by hate groups, many bills are incoherent
|   gibberish (especially the ones written by lawyers :-), many bills are
|   obviously impractical for one reason or another.

Amen.

|   All the bills enter into a "natural selection" process in which they
|   compete for the attention of the legislators (who are the only ones able
|   to enact a bill into law).

A concession to transition -- good. More importantly, there is nothing
that guarantees the continued operation of the phone system or the net
in critical times. So there's a good reason to have representatives
involved for just such contingencies. Makes sense.

|   All the users of the network act as a filter. Users can read and comment
|   on the pending bills. Users can select which bills they are willing to
|   read based on criteria like random selection, a certain number of
|   favorable reviews by other readers, the topic the bill addresses, etc.
|   Users can change their comments if a new argument or new information
|   persuades them they were in error. Users can subscribe to various
|   public interest or lobbyist mailing lists and only review those bills
|   brought to the attention of the list, etc., etc.

Hoorah! And the commentary, pro and con is collected and plays into
the viability of the bill as described below. This one takes *real
courage* though. For instance -- I'd be a fool to come out against the
Superconducting Super Collider, which is a local piece of pork. I need
freedom loving folks in other parts of the country to spear-head such
criticism. Likewise, I can do the same for them, *if* I know what the
proposals are. Indeed an ethical dilemma.

Not having such critical review is of course the problem with our
current system. The process proposed is elegant in that such a
mechanism can *reveal* the folks who you'd trust to be representatives.
Either because they are somehow able to successfully argue the points,
or horse-trade, to gain support for a local intitiatives; or they have
the moral fiber to weed out the junk.

|   The primary criteria which will bring a bill to the attention of
|   legislators is a large percentage of favorable reviews. Most likely the
|   legislators will not read every bill, but only the ones which make it
|   through the "natural selection" process with favorable comments. This
|   will be a very small percentage.

Perhaps a mechanism that allows a pro-comment or a con-comment to
exactly counter one other individual opposing on that issue?

Each commentor only gets one shot. Imagine the interplay.

|   Once a bill is noticed by the legislators, there are likely to be certain
|   legislators with reputations for expertise in the area the bill
|   addresses. Their comments are most likely to be given weight by the other
|   members of the legislature (formerly, specific committee's dealt with
|   individual bills prior to their presentation, now the process has
|   changed, and informal "committees" of experts grow up around individual
|   bills of interest).
|
|Step 3: Amendments.
|
|   An amended bill goes through process similar to a new bill, it is treated
|   like a brand new bill, but mechanisms are available for the transfer of
|   comments from the original bill to the amended bill.  It is possible for
|   many versions of the same bill to be in the system at the same time, but
|   one of the versions will eventually emerge from the natural selection
|   process as the most favorable version.

And in a time critical fashion. Overmuch detailing can kill a version,
just as lack of interest can. Such is the problem with a blow-by-blow
commentary as we've all so often seen. (.. and with which I threaten
the viability of this posting now.) It's crucial to know when and when
not to summarize or synthesize. There is yet a ways to go, in
what is proving to be a very well considered, and presently *possible*
system.

|Step 4: Death.
|
|   Any bill introduced has a limited lifetime. If it does not recieve enough
|   favorable comments to gain attention, it expires and is removed from the
|   network.
|
|Step 5: Life. ["Survival."  /Sdt]
|
|   If a bill attracts a favorable vote from the majority of legislators
|   before it expires, then it becomes law. (Note that no formal vote takes
|   place at a specific time - all debate and voting takes place on the
|   network at a time and place convenient to the legislator). When the final
|   vote giving the bill a majority is cast, a one week timer starts. If no
|   one changes their vote from favorable to unfavorable in that time, the
|   final votes are recorded and it is sent to the president for signature or
|   veto.

Good idea. A cooling off period, like we have for purchases.

Another good point, which those of us who have fought telephone tag,
and who have relished in the freedom of NetNews-style interaction, can
truly appreciate. The utility of decoupling the "fleshing out" process
from time/travel constraints is the birth or a new freedom. That clock
is still ticking though -- the one unavoidable constraint on all of us.
Only the most important issues are the only ones likely to survive.

Here's where the screaming starts in opposition to "inter-networking"
a bill. Those with "elitists" interest (...those of you with refined
taste, brace yourself...) such as the NEA or NASA, will have a hard
time getting their issues through the process. So we still have the
possibility or orphaned interests. I think the prime detractors of
this proposal, or the Electronic Town Hall, are the one's who don't
believe that individuals are responsible enough to make the "better"
decisions.

For me it's not a matter of what's better, or even what's reasonable.
It's a matter of charging people with responsibility. Every citizen,
*adult or child* should be part of the process. Every citizen has the
right and every citizen has the responsibility to be involved without
constraint. Voter registration is a barbarism of our times.

 )(  It's an aside, but yes we're being foolish in not allowing  )(
)(  our children the vote. One has to start learning somewhere &  )(
)( I think the earlier the better. There should be no minimum age )(
)(  for voting, nor for participating in the discussion. If they  )(
 )( are so inclined then youngsters should be involved early on. )(

What is being presented, in this not-so-fictional account, is a way
for all people to become involved in the process, short of actually
voting. This may herald a new evolution in politics since *anyone's*
"say" can become a precursor to the law.

Having a meaningful "say" in what goes on, is something we've lost
because of the growth of our populace. It can be restored, because
this process can take place in parallel throughout *all* our
communities, with the most worthwhile issues surviving into national
promulgation. (We are talking about input from 100's of millions of
participants spanning all issues; no mean logistical feat.) The proof
of the utility of the process is here now in our NetNews community of
1.5 million.

The first real technical hurdle is an "under $100 dollar terminal" for
home use (with high density storage). We are not far from that in our
handhelds now. Basically another telephone appliance, but one with the
same impact that fax has had in the business community. The conncetions
for net-access exist on many levels, and the possibility of national
promulgations (for instance via cable or fm) is also there.

* Terminals should be everywhere you find a phone now. *

Now to wrap up ...

|   This one week waiting period gives the public a chance to persuade
|   legislators to change their vote (and it gives delinquent legislators a
|   chance to have their votes recorded). The one week also gives the public
|   a chance to notice bills which mysteriously made it through the natural
|   selection process with almost no public comment.

Stealth messaging. =-)

|   A roll call vote of a supermajority is required to introduce or pass a
|   bill with less than the one week public review period. This allows
|   emergency legislation to be passed without delay while insuring most
|   bills have a chance to be examined by the public.

Left to my own preferences, I'd make every vote a supermajority. But
we all deserve to have a say. Afterall, We are the people...

-- Sdt

  (Thanks Tom. How'd you know about the Prentice Hall stock? ;^)