Track Record: Words or Deeds

Lately I've found myself thinking a lot about politics. I'm not exactly sure why, but perhaps because of the increasing (or merely continuing) difficulty the national Republican leaders have had over the past six months. I was commenting to a friend the other day that perhaps scandal - or at least, claims of scandal - are the norm. Clinton's presidency certainly had it's share of excitement.

One of the aspects of politics I've been thinking about is a candidate track record. Currently, we have two primary records. The first are known as "campaign promises" which typically work great until the candidate discovers that their fellow representatives don't share their goals - and that, strangely enough, we don't have unlimited money to allow us to both increase governmental programs and cut taxes.

The second track record are horribly complicated writs known as "bills". We learn that candidate Jack voted for bills AR-602, QN-309, and XB-1287 allowing the sale of fertilizer to inner city gardeners, but against five other bills that would have restricted sales of grenades and civil war cannons to underage children. Thus we learn that poor Jack is undoubtedly unwilling to protect us from crime and violence.

Of course, since bills tend to include five-hundred thirty-one and some odd other provisions, we don't know why Jack actually voted against the bills. Perhaps they violated the constitution? Perhaps he thought gun laws didn't justify driving half a million people out of their homes due to new economic policies. After the facts, both the candidate and his opponents are welcome to interpret his vote however they like.

So here's my proposal. Whenever officials vote on a bill, they should publish an opinion explaining their vote. Think of this practice like courts: When they decide a case, they publish an opinion explaining the key points of the law that led to their decision. It becomes part of the official record.

Yes, this statement would also become open for debate. But at least it would make it harder to rewriting history over the years...and it would give the public greater insight into the decision making process that our leaders are going through, and the way they would like us to view their votes.