Micah asks if having an "abstain/present" vote should be removed as an option. K Sera and Phil ponder the questions while also doing their very best not to get side tracked into other conversations.
Note: this episode was originally recorded last year (from publication) in mid Summer of 2022. Things have changed, obviously.
Show notes: N/A
K Sera's after thoughts:
In our podcast pasture, the sheep dog has adhd!
One correction: Talisker isn’t the ‘only’ distillery on the isle of skye, but it is the oldest! My 18-year is still in my booze closet, and I think I’ll have a sip or two tonight for some reminiscence. Now, abstaining on a vote, I think, is definitely a government official passing the buck, but I think there are things that the government doesn’t actually need to rule on. Some things are moot. Some things are not worth enshrining in law. Some things don’t need to be decided immediately, especially if more information and fact finding is necessary. Abstaining from a vote should be allowed. I do think it is frustrating, however, and I would agree that it isn’t a great look for our representatives showing up consistently to not work or make decisions on the things we elected them to decide on. If you choose to abstain, maybe you could make it annoying for the abstainer by requiring an explanation, similar to the way a Supreme Court judge writes dissenting opinions? I don’t know. Phil's after thoughts Our poor sheep dog is either exhausted from chasing our errant thoughts or has given up on life and found a bottle of scotch. Rest well, Sheepy. When I re-listen to this episode I think of the classic line from an old satire movie Dr Strangelove where someone shouts "There is no fighting in the War Room!" Playing the "PRESENT" or "ABSTAIN" vote is 100% politics. It is playing politics IN POLITICS at PEAK POLITICS. About a year later after the initial recording of this episode, Krysten Sinema ended up leaving the Democratic Party and becoming an independent. She shrewdly played her hand and now the Democratic party must face a difficult election: either they attempt to present a Democratic challenger (where Kyrsten Sinema will inevitably split the vote and have a Republican candidate enter the Senate) or support Krysten Sinema in Arizona in order to reduce the GOP voting power in government. Either way, her "ABSTAIN" and "PRESENT" votes were signals to Senate leadership AND to her voters (as many of AZ politics plays center/independent compared to the rest of the nation). Long story short: she is playing politics. The sad thing is that they had better primary candidates for the Democratic party when she was ultimately elected, and if they would have went with ANY OF THEM they would have avoided this whole mess. But that is what politics are, and unfortunately it will be a sad day when major life-saving laws "could have been enacted" but weren't because she wanted more power and sway. The only way to mitigate this is to increase the voter motivation to actually care what is going on in their local and federal elections (and who is just playing for power, and who is actually representing Americans). I think we have gotten there in Minnesota at least, and it is my hope that other states realize that passing laws that only protect the rich while also binding the rest of us is no longer "good politics" anymore. A human can dream, after all.