If the failure mode of this proposal (excessive splitting of bills) is less disruptive than the current situation (attaching bill-killing, shutdown-threatening riders), then it seems to me we would still be better off with this implemented than without.<p>In addition, as long as the votes for this are public, it seems like it would be harder to defend capricious action for political gain, since anyone could see that <i>this</i> group of senators all voted to split legislation that clearly should not have been split and then take them to task for it.  It could even be mandatory that a proposal to split a bill must be accompanied by an explanation (also publicly available) of why it should be split that way.  It&#x27;s one thing in my opinion to put something controversial into an unrelated bill--there will always be people who are in favor of that, so it is politically defensible and can score points--but it is another thing entirely to try to (literally) rationalize the frivolous division of a cohesive bill.<p>It actually strikes me as quite an elegant solution to the problem of riders and sprawling legislation.