> Using neutral bill names, e.g., HR 625 or SB 1780 would be an upgrade from what we have now.
In theory, but the names catch on because they're easy to remember and use in conversation. People responded to Heartbleed because it was catchy and easy to remember. CVE-2014-0160 was not.
Asking people to remember what SB1780 is and whether they support it is about as likely to happen as them remembering the CNAME or A record corresponding to a DNS request[0].
Even if we forbade these names from bills, the media would invent them. "Obamacare" was not even the real name for the Affordable Care Act, and was originally a pejorative term, but the media started using it because it was much more distinctive and evocative. It became so widely used that it's now lost much of it's pejorative connotation (you'll even hear Democrats referring to it non-pejoratively).
[0] Remember that the same bill has multiple such numbers (one each for the House and Senate, plus a new one if it's reintroduced in subsequent years, etc., which is not uncommon for many pieces of legislation).
I think Obamacare is still mostly a pejorative in my community - to the point that the minority proponents have recently taken to referring to it as the Affordable Care Act in a sort of rebranding attempt.
The Patriot Act has similarly transformed into a negative, doublespeak term. I'm not surprised the lawmakers felt the need to create a new bumpersticker-named law rather than continuing to edit the old one.
I believe the Daily Show at some point asked people what they thought of Obamacare and what they thought of the Affordable Care Act, and while most people were negative about Obamacare, the very same people were very supportive of the Affordable Care Act.
absolutely not true, those sorts of names have caught on in the past, it's all about what people consider important, not the actual name itself.
you could call the next bill involving abortion "CVE-2014-0160" and I guarantee you people would know it. You'd most likely just hear "bill 0160" or the like, but the point is that it's the contents that make remember the bill, not the name. The name is marketing.
> you could call the next bill involving abortion "CVE-2014-0160" and I guarantee you people would know it
What about the next 50 controversial bills?
Would you remember which one is CVE20140160 and which one is CVE20150240?
It gets hard once there's 4 of them. If you have to deal with 10 of them at once, it's impossible to remember which is which unless you work in the field, at which point you're not the one phased by names like "patriot act", "freedom act" or "isn't it cool to hate on the french act".
Maybe if I say 09f91102 you'll know what that is. But I doubt you know what e83c5163 is.
In theory, but the names catch on because they're easy to remember and use in conversation. People responded to Heartbleed because it was catchy and easy to remember. CVE-2014-0160 was not.
Asking people to remember what SB1780 is and whether they support it is about as likely to happen as them remembering the CNAME or A record corresponding to a DNS request[0].
Even if we forbade these names from bills, the media would invent them. "Obamacare" was not even the real name for the Affordable Care Act, and was originally a pejorative term, but the media started using it because it was much more distinctive and evocative. It became so widely used that it's now lost much of it's pejorative connotation (you'll even hear Democrats referring to it non-pejoratively).
[0] Remember that the same bill has multiple such numbers (one each for the House and Senate, plus a new one if it's reintroduced in subsequent years, etc., which is not uncommon for many pieces of legislation).