Andy Downs of the Mike Downs Center for Indiana Politics at IPFW has an opinion piece in the Indianapolis Star exploring the obvious but dismaying (to many) fact that "Public policies are the result of compromise."
For a bill to become law in Indiana, 51 representatives and 26 senators have to vote "yes" and the governor has to sign it. This level of agreement is difficult to achieve. In the most recent session of the General Assembly about 1,200 bills were introduced and about 130 became law. That percentage is a bit lower than other years, but not by much.
To reach agreements, legislators negotiate with each other and with the executive branch much in the same way we do when we buy a house. We know what we are willing to pay for a house and the seller knows what he is willing to accept. Figures get volleyed back and forth and eventually we end up at a number between what each side offered originally.
I'm not that comfortable with the buying-a-house analogy. In that transaction, everyone agrees on the principle involved, which is that a house should exchange hands; the only dispute is for how much. In legislative debates, there is often a philosophic dispute over whether something should be done at all. And a house purchase is a one-time thing. Legislative compromise is affected by past legislative actions and will in turn affect future actions; there is a complicated continuum.
Legislators find it easier to stand on principles if they are from a district they won easily and are likely to win again -- a safe district.
In 2010, there were 25 seats up for election in the Indiana Senate. Fifteen of those seats were won by 10 percentage points or more (60 percent), including five seats that were uncontested. Only four seats were decided by five points or less. That same year in the Indiana House, 89 of the 100 seats were decided by 10 points or more, including 18 uncontested seats. Only 11 seats were decided by five points or less.
If more legislators stand on principles because of the safety of their district, we may see fewer things accomplished by the General Assembly. By some standards that would be a good thing; by others it would be a tragedy.
By my standards, ""fewer things accomplished" would certainly be closer to a good thing than a tragedy. Is there really a case to be made that we need a lot more laws than we already have, or that government needs to do even more? I think I'm generally more comfortable with divided government than even with one packed with so-called conservatives. Something happens to a lot of people when they get elected. No matter what they said as candidates about trimming back government, they get in those Indianapolis offices and feel like they just have to start doing things.
I think it's easier for liberals to compromise, by the way. Their idea is to get government going and spend whatever it takes. So any compromise is a victory for them; they just take whatever they can get today and know they can get more tomorrow. A conservative knows that when he compromises, he's basically voting to let government keep growing, just at a slightly slower rate. Every comromise, then, is a victory for the liberal side.
