E.g. the common Senate trick of voting for cloture, that is, the end of modern version of the filibuster which needs 60 votes (not that that is likely to survive very long now that the "nuclear option" has been launched) and then voting against the bill. That gives 9-10 Senators room for posturing, and underlines how you need to learn some of each house's procedures to know what's really going on.
Not all that much, that plus paying attention to a few bills you consider telling, and a little search fu on thomas.gov the day after a vote goes a long way.
ADDED: For the House, you need to learn, generally from other sources, the rules under which a bill was brought to the floor and the associated votes. Whatever you knew about the Senate is now subject to abrupt change: among other things, the nuclear option was launched with a majority vote of the Senators, and the sources I've been reading say a rules change by majority vote was either unprecedented or not done for more than a century.
Senate Majority Leader Reid has also de facto changed rules like the ability to offer amendments (the words of art are "filling the amendment tree"), and has recently? formally stated that right is over.
Lord knows what's going to happen when the Republicans regain control of the Senate someday; even the "why can't we all be friends?" Republican Senate old bulls are very unhappy about these changes.
Yep, or the voting against a bill you like in the Senate so you can bring it up again.
It saddens me that reporters don't explain the rules to people. The misreporting on what a vote means and why some voted Yeah to one vote and Nay to another really bugs me. Certain news outlets have actually lied about what was going on.
It is a bit hard to follow. Locally, one ND reporter followed the ND session on twitter and did a remarkably good job including explaining the reasons for the 1 vote in a 99-1 vote that looked correct but could have been horribly (and maliciously) misreported.
[edit] as to the "nuclear option" - very short-sited and makes one see that Pres. Clinton was a much better manager of the executive branch.
Any time the outcome of a vote is overdetermined there is room for manipulation of one's voting record. I'm not sure what to think about, in particular, the practice of voting for cloture and against the bill. In principle, one could consistently hold the position that denying cloture should be reserved for cases of strong rejection (or similar). I am not convinced "use every procedural opportunity to push your agenda, regardless of anything else" is what we want (though I'm not entirely convinced that it isn't, either).
E.g. the common Senate trick of voting for cloture, that is, the end of modern version of the filibuster which needs 60 votes (not that that is likely to survive very long now that the "nuclear option" has been launched) and then voting against the bill. That gives 9-10 Senators room for posturing, and underlines how you need to learn some of each house's procedures to know what's really going on.
Not all that much, that plus paying attention to a few bills you consider telling, and a little search fu on thomas.gov the day after a vote goes a long way.
ADDED: For the House, you need to learn, generally from other sources, the rules under which a bill was brought to the floor and the associated votes. Whatever you knew about the Senate is now subject to abrupt change: among other things, the nuclear option was launched with a majority vote of the Senators, and the sources I've been reading say a rules change by majority vote was either unprecedented or not done for more than a century.
Senate Majority Leader Reid has also de facto changed rules like the ability to offer amendments (the words of art are "filling the amendment tree"), and has recently? formally stated that right is over.
Lord knows what's going to happen when the Republicans regain control of the Senate someday; even the "why can't we all be friends?" Republican Senate old bulls are very unhappy about these changes.