10 ms·

While it's awesome that it works against SOPA, this is an illustration of the type of thing that is wrong with our political system.

marshray 15y ago
It's a feature, not a bug. The founders of the USA when they wrote the constitution intentionally put in a fair amount of paralysis because they preferred a weak Federal government. For things truly needing quick action, there's the office of the President.
- jodrellblank 15y ago
  Its a stupid feature. It should not take 11 days of all available senators time to register an objection. It is an unjustifiable waste of expensive people's time and effort/opportunity cost. Put aside "its always been this way" and work out something better - shorter, and to similar effect. As important as SOPA is, its not as important as many other things going on in the world right now, wasting senator time in this way is so daft.
  - JadeNB 15y ago
    > It is an unjustifiable waste of expensive people's time and effort/opportunity cost. I guess you mean (expensive (people's time)) rather than ((expensive people)'s time), but it still doesn't make much sense to me. Why is their time expensive? Because they've got so many other valuable things to do? I read (though I can't remember the source) a report from one congressman who said that most representatives simply don't have time to read all the bills on which they have to vote. This means that a lot of votes are passed not based on the representative's understanding of them, but based on what the loudest voices tell him or her—an understandable but frightening lacuna, when considering whose the loudest voices are. Isn't anything, even political theatre, valuable if it allows those of us with less political clout nonetheless to wield a louder voice?
    - jodrellblank 15y ago
      Why is their time expensive? Because they've got so many other valuable things to do? No, because the tax payer pays a lot above average salary for them. "The current salary (2011) for rank-and-file members of the House and Senate is $174,000 per year" - about.com Isn't anything, even political theatre, valuable if it allows those of us with less political clout nonetheless to wield a louder voice? Maybe, better than literally dropping it, but I wasn't suggesting that, I was suggesting taking what it does and making it simpler to do. If it's useful for a senator to filibuster for days until they collapse of exhaustion, instead make it so a senator can register a million vote petition, show it as evidence, and put a delay on the bill as if he was talking, but have everyone involved do something else instead.
  - marshray 15y ago
    unjustifiable waste of expensive people's time You don't actually think all Senators are sitting there listening patiently for 11 days do you? Would be awesome if they were. That would probably save the country like $25B a day or something.
    - jodrellblank 15y ago
      No, but I expect more than 1 person is there, otherwise he would just come in from a holiday and say "I spent 11 days reading a million names alone in my office" and nobody would know any different.
      - marshray 15y ago
        I remember years ago on CSPAN they were videoing the House of Representatives. There was some Rep at the podium delivering this impassioned speech like he was about to start pounding his shoe or something. For one reason or another, the Speaker of the House decides he's had enough. He interrupts the Rep, starts shouting at the CSPAN cameraman, and orders him to turn the camera around. The camera pans the room ... it's almost totally empty. The Rep is just preaching for the camera.
portentint 15y ago
It's by design. Our system is built to prevent what the framers of the Constitution called 'tyranny of the majority'. A small group can, if it's sufficiently organized, stop something like SOPA.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]

marshray 15y ago

It's a feature, not a bug. The founders of the USA when they wrote the constitution intentionally put in a fair amount of paralysis because they preferred a weak Federal government. For things truly needing quick action, there's the office of the President.

jodrellblank 15y ago
Its a stupid feature. It should not take 11 days of all available senators time to register an objection. It is an unjustifiable waste of expensive people's time and effort/opportunity cost. Put aside "its always been this way" and work out something better - shorter, and to similar effect. As important as SOPA is, its not as important as many other things going on in the world right now, wasting senator time in this way is so daft.
- JadeNB 15y ago
  > It is an unjustifiable waste of expensive people's time and effort/opportunity cost. I guess you mean (expensive (people's time)) rather than ((expensive people)'s time), but it still doesn't make much sense to me. Why is their time expensive? Because they've got so many other valuable things to do? I read (though I can't remember the source) a report from one congressman who said that most representatives simply don't have time to read all the bills on which they have to vote. This means that a lot of votes are passed not based on the representative's understanding of them, but based on what the loudest voices tell him or her—an understandable but frightening lacuna, when considering whose the loudest voices are. Isn't anything, even political theatre, valuable if it allows those of us with less political clout nonetheless to wield a louder voice?
  - jodrellblank 15y ago
    Why is their time expensive? Because they've got so many other valuable things to do? No, because the tax payer pays a lot above average salary for them. "The current salary (2011) for rank-and-file members of the House and Senate is $174,000 per year" - about.com Isn't anything, even political theatre, valuable if it allows those of us with less political clout nonetheless to wield a louder voice? Maybe, better than literally dropping it, but I wasn't suggesting that, I was suggesting taking what it does and making it simpler to do. If it's useful for a senator to filibuster for days until they collapse of exhaustion, instead make it so a senator can register a million vote petition, show it as evidence, and put a delay on the bill as if he was talking, but have everyone involved do something else instead.
- marshray 15y ago
  unjustifiable waste of expensive people's time You don't actually think all Senators are sitting there listening patiently for 11 days do you? Would be awesome if they were. That would probably save the country like $25B a day or something.
  - jodrellblank 15y ago
    No, but I expect more than 1 person is there, otherwise he would just come in from a holiday and say "I spent 11 days reading a million names alone in my office" and nobody would know any different.
    - marshray 15y ago
      I remember years ago on CSPAN they were videoing the House of Representatives. There was some Rep at the podium delivering this impassioned speech like he was about to start pounding his shoe or something. For one reason or another, the Speaker of the House decides he's had enough. He interrupts the Rep, starts shouting at the CSPAN cameraman, and orders him to turn the camera around. The camera pans the room ... it's almost totally empty. The Rep is just preaching for the camera.

portentint 15y ago

It's by design. Our system is built to prevent what the framers of the Constitution called 'tyranny of the majority'. A small group can, if it's sufficiently organized, stop something like SOPA.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]