When it comes to claim specificity, you could look at Metaculus for how a specified claim looks. It’s not simply one sentence.
When you have a quite one specific claim, often a position could be “Yes for X being Y, not for X being Z”.
Most legislative systems do have a system for public comments where public comments can be submitted. If you want to claim to be “in the room” than interfacing with the actual public comment bureaucratic mechanisms would be vital.
You model seems like the important thing when discussing a bill is to get to approve/disapprove based on a short summary of a bill. This is probably bad because the details of bills actually matter.
I was once talking with a lobbyist who said that one of his most impactful public commentary was something like saying “If you pass that bill you would actually completely outlaw industry X, which you probably did not intend because if you would pass the bill A B C would happen”
When it comes to claim specificity, you could look at Metaculus for how a specified claim looks. It’s not simply one sentence.
When you have a quite one specific claim, often a position could be “Yes for X being Y, not for X being Z”.
Most legislative systems do have a system for public comments where public comments can be submitted. If you want to claim to be “in the room” than interfacing with the actual public comment bureaucratic mechanisms would be vital.
You model seems like the important thing when discussing a bill is to get to approve/disapprove based on a short summary of a bill. This is probably bad because the details of bills actually matter.
I was once talking with a lobbyist who said that one of his most impactful public commentary was something like saying “If you pass that bill you would actually completely outlaw industry X, which you probably did not intend because if you would pass the bill A B C would happen”