Good governance shouldn't need fine print.

[Anomalism]

Riders are one of the clearest signs that legislation often isn’t about actual problem solving, but instead about performance, manipulation, and control of the narrative. When politicians tack on unrelated or toxic provisions to a bill that has public support, they know it will tank the whole thing, but then they can turn around and say “See? The other side voted against it.” It makes me wonder if they ever even wanted the bill to pass in the first place, and if it was all just theater.

If they actually want bills to get passed they should be clear and straightforward without a bunch of unrelated nonsense. The way they do things gives the impression that it’s all one big club behind the curtains. Are excessive riders a form of intentional dysfunction? Is it just smoke and mirrors from a group of people serving similar interests?

Do politicians even support what they claim to publicly, or do they intentionally poison their own bills with riders just to create a false image of what they actually support?

There is a gap between what politicians say and what they actually do, and I think legislative tactics like riders are a huge part of that. They can be used to manipulate outcomes while maintaining plausible deniability.

If both parties use riders that sabotage popular bills, is that dysfunction accidental or by design?

If a party knows a bill will fail because of what they added to it, was the real goal to pass the bill, or just to posture?

 

[Anomalism]

Riders weren’t always abused this way. Originally, they were intended to streamline the process by attaching minor, related changes to larger bills. Over time they evolved into a tool for obfuscation or sabotage.

When and how did riders become a problem instead of a convenience?

 

[Anomalism]

Damn. I was really hoping for some discussion here.

 

[Anomalism]

Final effort!

 

[ColonelAngus]

No traction.

 

[Anomalism]

No traction.

No disagreement either.

 

[ColonelAngus]

No disagreement either.

Sometimes threads I start also go nowhere.

Who knows why.

Maybe riders is too nuanced for people to dog into.

I know Van Halen had no brown M&Ms in their rider.

 

[Anomalism]

Sometimes threads I start also go nowhere.

Who knows why.

Maybe riders is too nuanced for people to dog into.

I know Van Halen had no brown M&Ms in their rider.

Maybe.

For anybody that doesn't understand, riders are simply extra stuff tacked onto bills that don't necessarily have anything to do with those bills. It's a huge part of why so many bills fail.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Maybe.

For anybody that doesn't understand, riders are simply extra stuff tacked onto bills that don't necessarily have anything to do with those bills. It's a huge part of why so many bills fail.

Yea, lots of Congressional members to tack on things at the last minute to benefit their constituents.

 

[Anomalism]

Yea, lots of Congressional members to tack on things at the last minute to benefit their constituents.

Do you think it's possible that the dysfunction is intentional? That people intentionally sabotage their own bills so they can posture and claim to support something they don't?

 

[ColonelAngus]

Do you think it's possible that the dysfunction is intentional? That people intentionally sabotage their own bills so they can posture and claim to support something they don't?

Probably. And if it passes, they get a bunch of stuff for their district.

 

[Anomalism]

Probably. And if it passes, they get a bunch of stuff for their district.

To me it would just be one more sign that there's not as much difference between Republicans and Democrats as they want us to believe.