I’m confused about this model. You need A) leaders to suggest/champion good legislation, and then B) enough legislators to actually pass said legislation, no? So what’s the point of having A without B? I suppose in your model, bad B’s worsen the good legislation suggested by the A’s, but I don’t see an in-principle way to resolve that problem in a majoritarian legislature rather than a one-person dictatorship. How do you go from having great A’s but no B’s, to getting useful legislation signed into law?
Sure, but I meant that you still need the votes of those other people, too. And the fewer votes you have, the more compromises make it into the final bill.
I’m confused about this model. You need A) leaders to suggest/champion good legislation, and then B) enough legislators to actually pass said legislation, no? So what’s the point of having A without B? I suppose in your model, bad B’s worsen the good legislation suggested by the A’s, but I don’t see an in-principle way to resolve that problem in a majoritarian legislature rather than a one-person dictatorship. How do you go from having great A’s but no B’s, to getting useful legislation signed into law?
AIUI, Bores and Weiner were the sole champions of their bill. Other people voted for them, obviously, but they didn’t advocate for them.
Sure, but I meant that you still need the votes of those other people, too. And the fewer votes you have, the more compromises make it into the final bill.