5 ms·

I'm one of the people quoted in the article and most of the others quoted are my peers. A bunch of us have worked on Capitol Hill as staff; several of us worked

I'm one of the people quoted in the article and most of the others quoted are my peers. A bunch of us have worked on Capitol Hill as staff; several of us worked for Congress's think tank; others have written books on Congress. I say this only to emphasize my point that what Ringwiss has done is truly remarkable. He has an apparent deep understanding of the rules of procedure that govern the House and the Senate, which are very different from one another, and he can keep them straight. I wouldn't have the patience to watch the floor for hours on end, and while I'm sure I could read through the precedents, it's doubtful that I could retain in active memory more than a fraction. I have read the House and Senate rules cover to cover, more than once -- but that's not the same as being able to operationalize them and recall it at an instant, and it's also not the same as digging through the precedents and understanding what they mean. That comes from a lot of practice. Besides having a particular interest in the topic, my suspicion is Ringwiss has an eidetic memory. He is a remarkable person and I'm glad that he's doing what he does. In my opinion, the House and Senate rules are so complicated that only a few people can understand them. The procedures are used to gather power in the hands of a few, which undermines their original purpose: to facilitate orderly debate and empower all the members equally. I compare them to Roberts Rules of Order, Revised, which are straightforward enough that most people can grasp them with a reading or two. As I said, what he's doing is remarkable, but it's also remarkable that few can do what he's doing.

snowwrestler 3y ago
> In my opinion, the House and Senate rules are so complicated that only a few people can understand them. The procedures are used to gather power in the hands of a few, which undermines their original purpose: to facilitate orderly debate and empower all the members equally. I disagree, and so does Surdy, as noted extensively in the latter part of this article. Congressional power is gathered and perpetuated primarily through means outside Congressional procedure like fundraising, PAC distributions, control of party apparatus, committee assignments, endorsements, PR, etc. Members of Congress have quite a lot of procedural power but choose not to exercise it in the face of these other incentives. This is not a view specific to Surdy; other parliamentary experts like James Wallner sound the same tune. Those incentives also therefore dominate the attention of most staff, lobbyists, journalists, etc who make a living supporting, influencing, and covering members of Congress. This is the primary reason so few bother to put in the work to do what Surdy does. I don’t mean to minimize the intelligence and hard work of Surdy, which is impressive. He may have a significant advantage by being so far from the Beltway bubble that he can ignore all that politics stuff above and just sink into the pure procedure. He’s also free to tweet. There are other people in DC with at least the same level of parliamentary command, but generally they make a living by providing that expertise privately to those willing to pay for it.
- lupire 3y ago
  Who pays to partliamentary expertise?
  - pyuser583 3y ago
    This is a serious question. I assume many entities pay for ‘inside scoops’ and lobbying. But who really needs to know the ins and outs of congressional procedure?
    - ngcc_hk 3y ago
      People who play the game, people who study it (as it will evolve over time) and public who may need to know whether these rules affecting them possibly and more likely by independent rule studier.
- unethical_ban 3y ago
  I don't know if what you said contradicts the parent comment. The parent complains that congressional rules don't favor equality in its membership; you say that doesn't matter because lobbying and committee assignments mean more. My reading is both could be true.
  - readyman 3y ago
    Both can be true, but the structural forces (described by snowwrestler) predominate the influence of parliamentary expertise. Parliamentarianism is a game in itself, and it's only effective insofar as actual politics are being done, which is rarely the case on the floor of the US congress, which is more like a theatre stage where politics have usually been preempted by economics relations.
- readyman 3y ago
  A fine structural analysis
- pjc50 3y ago
  As readyman says, these are two very well expressed, both valid views of how the system operates. There's a system of rules, and there's a power structure. The formal rules operate almost all of the time, and can be an interesting sport to follow. But there's a lot in that "almost". The moment a mob comes through the window with guns, the rules become irrelevant and the power and loyalty structure becomes extremely important. And even in the everyday there are attempts by all parties to simply end-run round congressional process, at State, presidential, or Supreme Court level.
unethical_ban 3y ago
It's unfortunate that the rules of Congress are so complex and arcane. (It's also unfortunate the Senate exists at all in its current form). Thanks for your perspective. Makes me want to do some studying, but my energy would probably be better used on my city and state procedures.
pdonis 3y ago
> I compare them to Roberts Rules of Order, Revised, which are straightforward enough that most people can grasp them with a reading or two. Then why don't the House and Senate change their rules to something more like Robert's Rules of Order? All it takes is a majority vote of each house.
- roenxi 3y ago
  The straightforward answer is because they like their current rules more than Robert's rules. I'd imagine literally every rule was voted on by the body in question, so they are all things that people supported. If you want to get really cynical, the major parties are complex coalitions of interest groups. It is really convenient for the power brokers to have arcane rules because issues can be delayed and the waters muddied around which politicians support what. Doesn't need to be perfect, it just needs to be weird enough that the average voter gets confused about whats and whys of procedural details.
- dschuma 3y ago
  Because the rules of the chambers are not designed to be neutral, they're designed to advance the goals of whoever has written them. In the House, it's leadership. In the Senate, it's to protect the powers of each individual senator. The House Rules change every 2 years. In the Senate, changing the rules takes 2/3s, and that basically never happens.
reader_x 3y ago
I hope the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service hires Surdy asap.
- ckdarby 3y ago
  I believe that is the wrong approach. Why is an individual after 3 years becoming the go to expert when the government employees many individuals for this very reason. I don't mean this in a demeaning manner, but the government needs to raise the standard of expectations of their workers. There is nowhere else I know of that has this sense of absolute job security and yet expectations on individuals never rise. Why does government staff continue to grow at incredible numbers with the access to technology, and yet services don't leap forward?
pyuser583 3y ago
Thank you for your work supporting semicolons!
randomcarbloke 3y ago
>my suspicion is Ringwiss has an eidetic memory There is no such thing.

snowwrestler 3y ago

> In my opinion, the House and Senate rules are so complicated that only a few people can understand them. The procedures are used to gather power in the hands of a few, which undermines their original purpose: to facilitate orderly debate and empower all the members equally. I disagree, and so does Surdy, as noted extensively in the latter part of this article. Congressional power is gathered and perpetuated primarily through means outside Congressional procedure like fundraising, PAC distributions, control of party apparatus, committee assignments, endorsements, PR, etc. Members of Congress have quite a lot of procedural power but choose not to exercise it in the face of these other incentives. This is not a view specific to Surdy; other parliamentary experts like James Wallner sound the same tune. Those incentives also therefore dominate the attention of most staff, lobbyists, journalists, etc who make a living supporting, influencing, and covering members of Congress. This is the primary reason so few bother to put in the work to do what Surdy does. I don’t mean to minimize the intelligence and hard work of Surdy, which is impressive. He may have a significant advantage by being so far from the Beltway bubble that he can ignore all that politics stuff above and just sink into the pure procedure. He’s also free to tweet. There are other people in DC with at least the same level of parliamentary command, but generally they make a living by providing that expertise privately to those willing to pay for it.

lupire 3y ago
Who pays to partliamentary expertise?
- pyuser583 3y ago
  This is a serious question. I assume many entities pay for ‘inside scoops’ and lobbying. But who really needs to know the ins and outs of congressional procedure?
  - ngcc_hk 3y ago
    People who play the game, people who study it (as it will evolve over time) and public who may need to know whether these rules affecting them possibly and more likely by independent rule studier.
unethical_ban 3y ago
I don't know if what you said contradicts the parent comment. The parent complains that congressional rules don't favor equality in its membership; you say that doesn't matter because lobbying and committee assignments mean more. My reading is both could be true.
- readyman 3y ago
  Both can be true, but the structural forces (described by snowwrestler) predominate the influence of parliamentary expertise. Parliamentarianism is a game in itself, and it's only effective insofar as actual politics are being done, which is rarely the case on the floor of the US congress, which is more like a theatre stage where politics have usually been preempted by economics relations.
readyman 3y ago
A fine structural analysis
pjc50 3y ago
As readyman says, these are two very well expressed, both valid views of how the system operates. There's a system of rules, and there's a power structure. The formal rules operate almost all of the time, and can be an interesting sport to follow. But there's a lot in that "almost". The moment a mob comes through the window with guns, the rules become irrelevant and the power and loyalty structure becomes extremely important. And even in the everyday there are attempts by all parties to simply end-run round congressional process, at State, presidential, or Supreme Court level.

unethical_ban 3y ago

It's unfortunate that the rules of Congress are so complex and arcane. (It's also unfortunate the Senate exists at all in its current form). Thanks for your perspective. Makes me want to do some studying, but my energy would probably be better used on my city and state procedures.

pdonis 3y ago

> I compare them to Roberts Rules of Order, Revised, which are straightforward enough that most people can grasp them with a reading or two. Then why don't the House and Senate change their rules to something more like Robert's Rules of Order? All it takes is a majority vote of each house.

roenxi 3y ago
The straightforward answer is because they like their current rules more than Robert's rules. I'd imagine literally every rule was voted on by the body in question, so they are all things that people supported. If you want to get really cynical, the major parties are complex coalitions of interest groups. It is really convenient for the power brokers to have arcane rules because issues can be delayed and the waters muddied around which politicians support what. Doesn't need to be perfect, it just needs to be weird enough that the average voter gets confused about whats and whys of procedural details.
dschuma 3y ago
Because the rules of the chambers are not designed to be neutral, they're designed to advance the goals of whoever has written them. In the House, it's leadership. In the Senate, it's to protect the powers of each individual senator. The House Rules change every 2 years. In the Senate, changing the rules takes 2/3s, and that basically never happens.

reader_x 3y ago

I hope the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service hires Surdy asap.

ckdarby 3y ago
I believe that is the wrong approach. Why is an individual after 3 years becoming the go to expert when the government employees many individuals for this very reason. I don't mean this in a demeaning manner, but the government needs to raise the standard of expectations of their workers. There is nowhere else I know of that has this sense of absolute job security and yet expectations on individuals never rise. Why does government staff continue to grow at incredible numbers with the access to technology, and yet services don't leap forward?

pyuser583 3y ago

Thank you for your work supporting semicolons!

randomcarbloke 3y ago

>my suspicion is Ringwiss has an eidetic memory There is no such thing.