I actually really like the idea of a set of code branches like the Linux kernel has. Different groups would have their own branches and when they reach something worthy of actually considering 'outside of comity' (their still published but clearly development branch) submit a patch to a staging (discussion) branch which will then hammer things out and get feedback / analysis that leads to a version that is actually voted on.

C-SPAN already exists for “sound byte legislating.”

Plus, fine-grained version control doesn’t imply real time updates. It’s fully possible to only release the version history to the public after the law is approved.

Then the first draft can go out when it would have been normally published. Then, the main value add would be commenting and suggesting changes as well as a centralized place to see comments and suggestions as well as their reactions.

I can just imagine shitty news websites exploding over someones draft/brainstorm and hyper criticism of unfinished work.

This is why the Constitution was drafted behind closed doors. The contributors needed room to have dumb ideas.

> Real time access to laws as they are drafted is a Really Bad Idea. Good ideas need time to incubate.

Good point, but if they used a distributed version control system, lawmakers could have any number of private repositories on which to craft laws before they're merged to the public master repo.

(I wouldn't expect lawmakers themselves to use git, of course; their staff would do this for them.)

using git doesnt make it a realtime system

Only a better system