Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Handle VoteEvents that address the passage of _multiple_ Bills #308

Open
mileswwatkins opened this issue Jan 29, 2018 · 6 comments
Open
Labels

Comments

@mileswwatkins
Copy link
Contributor

There is a legislative procedure known as "consent agenda" or "consent calendar," that allows for quick passage of innocuous legislation. In this system, a single VoteEvent can be on the passage of multiple Bills; a 1:M relationship that Pupa doesn't currently allow for.

One solution would be to add related_entities to the modeling of VoteEvents, analogous to Bill.actions objects' related_entities. This feels slightly off, since a more native solution would perhaps allow VoteEvent.bill to accept both a Pupa ID/pseudo-ID (ie, current behavior) or an array of these IDs; however, that may be too big of a modeling change for an edge case such as this.

Real-world examples exist in SD and PA, at least: https://github.com/openstates/openstates/issues/2100

@fgregg
Copy link
Contributor

fgregg commented Jan 29, 2018

Almost all the votes in the Chicago City Council are like this.

@mileswwatkins
Copy link
Contributor Author

@fgregg, how do you currently model those? VoteEvent.extras? Or is there a Pupa-native method that @jamesturk and I missed?

@fgregg
Copy link
Contributor

fgregg commented Jan 29, 2018

They get modeled as separate vote events.

@mileswwatkins
Copy link
Contributor Author

But ideally they would be a single VoteEvent, correct? (Just not a blocking issue for either of our uses.)

@fgregg
Copy link
Contributor

fgregg commented Jan 29, 2018

Sorry, yes. I meant to be supportive of this modeling change by giving example of this pattern.

I would definitely support a more accurate voteevent.

@jamesturk
Copy link
Member

jamesturk commented Jan 29, 2018 via email

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants