6 ms·

I wonder if the fact that the amendment earned "unanimous approval in the senate” is what should really be concerning here. The idea seems clearly a joke but it

I wonder if the fact that the amendment earned "unanimous approval in the senate” is what should really be concerning here. The idea seems clearly a joke but it was voted for by everyone in a senate split 27 Demoratcs/15 Republicans and headed for a house vote with a similar division (46D/24R). Does no one read what they are voting for?

coldtea 2y ago
If there are no lobbyists paying them to pay attention, why would they bother?
benterix 2y ago
> Does no one read what they are voting for? Does it really sound like the most likely explanation to you? Because I can think about several others.
- logrot 2y ago
  Do share
- AlecSchueler 2y ago
  Please could you share your other explanations? Whatever you're implying here is not clear, especially to non Americans.
  - hallway_monitor 2y ago
    The answer, of course, is that everyone sincerely agreed it would be beneficial to have the quacks wear wizard hats (to keep them from getting a big head)
  - cqqxo4zV46cp 2y ago
    What? You’re either speaking from the perspective of an American, or a non-American.
- MathMonkeyMan 2y ago
  What is another likely explanation?
  - michaelt 2y ago
    They might have read it, thought it was funny, and approved it anticipating someone else blocking or vetoing it. I mean, it's certainly true that lots of gigantic, complicated bills don't get read properly by politicians before voting on them. But this is about a paragraph and written in clear English, so you'd imagine it would have a good chance of getting read.
myrryr 2y ago
To be fair, Scott revealed the amendment was satirical prior to a vote in New Mexico House of Representatives. prior.... so they knew it was satire.
- willcipriano 2y ago
  Only if they were listening and say not elderly and half asleep.
- mannykannot 2y ago
  I suppose (and hope) the representatives figured that out themselves, and were simply going along in the same spirit - but one can't be sure, at least these days.
- extraduder_ire 2y ago
  Prior to the house vote, it had already passed the senate vote.
spacemanspiff01 2y ago
One of my thoughts is that legislatures need more money for staff. Executive branches have billions of dollars to hire experts on long term contracts. How many in house experts does a legislature have? Maybe 100 years ago this would work, but the modern state is really complex, and the problems are really complex, because if they were easy they would be solved. The amount of money that state and federal legislatures control is huge, My hunch is that if they spent more on extra staff, the increase in quality of legislation would provide enough economic benefits to cover the cost.
- michaelbuckbee 2y ago
  Theoretically, the agencies in the executive branch should fulfill this role.
- theoreticalmal 2y ago
  Isn’t this part of the benefit of lobbyists? Assume that every bill that goes before the legislature has someone who cares greatly (because if no one cared, it’s a problem that would have been solved beforehand), and you can guarantee at least two opposing viewpoints being represented by lobbyists, for “free” from the point of the legislative admin budget.
  - finnthehuman 2y ago
    Unless, of course, the best policy position does not create enough concentrated financial incentive for someone to hire a lobbyist to advocate for it.
- RattlesnakeJake 2y ago
  > ...more money for staff. Specifically, this staff: https://www.reliks.com/lord-of-rings-hobbit/staff-of-gandalf-grey/ https://www.reliks.com/lord-of-rings-hobbit/staff-of-gandalf...
- trogdor 2y ago
  Congress has the Congressional Research Service. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Research_Service https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Research_Servi... and https://crsreports.congress.gov/search/#/?termsToSearch=&orderBy=Date https://crsreports.congress.gov/search/#/?termsToSearch=&ord... CRS reports are a phenomenal source of information.
cqqxo4zV46cp 2y ago
This is hilarious. Do you genuinely think this little of politicians? No, seriously. I know politicians are easy to dunk on, but do you genuinely think that this is the explanation? That this is even a likely explanation? They weren’t just, you know, having a laugh? This is out of touch, even for HN.
pk-protect-ai 2y ago
I believe it is totally the opposite. Every single one of the voters has read the bill and agreed unanimously on passing it through, because it makes a lot of sense. Modern psychology is a little better than astrology back in the day. Psychology is yet to become a proper science, once it accepts proper scientific methods and discards the voodoo of past days. Until then, hereby I vote for them to wear wizard hats in public!
- yencabulator 2y ago
  > Modern psychology is a little better than astrology back in the day. That really sounds like you're implying that modern day astrology is better. It's shocking how popular astrology still is.
datascienced 2y ago
It seems like a joke but judges wear wigs in the UK. It is a pure style/tradition thing why not start a new one!

coldtea 2y ago

If there are no lobbyists paying them to pay attention, why would they bother?

benterix 2y ago

> Does no one read what they are voting for? Does it really sound like the most likely explanation to you? Because I can think about several others.

logrot 2y ago
Do share
AlecSchueler 2y ago
Please could you share your other explanations? Whatever you're implying here is not clear, especially to non Americans.
- hallway_monitor 2y ago
  The answer, of course, is that everyone sincerely agreed it would be beneficial to have the quacks wear wizard hats (to keep them from getting a big head)
- cqqxo4zV46cp 2y ago
  What? You’re either speaking from the perspective of an American, or a non-American.
MathMonkeyMan 2y ago
What is another likely explanation?
- michaelt 2y ago
  They might have read it, thought it was funny, and approved it anticipating someone else blocking or vetoing it. I mean, it's certainly true that lots of gigantic, complicated bills don't get read properly by politicians before voting on them. But this is about a paragraph and written in clear English, so you'd imagine it would have a good chance of getting read.

myrryr 2y ago

To be fair, Scott revealed the amendment was satirical prior to a vote in New Mexico House of Representatives. prior.... so they knew it was satire.

willcipriano 2y ago
Only if they were listening and say not elderly and half asleep.
mannykannot 2y ago
I suppose (and hope) the representatives figured that out themselves, and were simply going along in the same spirit - but one can't be sure, at least these days.
extraduder_ire 2y ago
Prior to the house vote, it had already passed the senate vote.

spacemanspiff01 2y ago

One of my thoughts is that legislatures need more money for staff. Executive branches have billions of dollars to hire experts on long term contracts. How many in house experts does a legislature have? Maybe 100 years ago this would work, but the modern state is really complex, and the problems are really complex, because if they were easy they would be solved. The amount of money that state and federal legislatures control is huge, My hunch is that if they spent more on extra staff, the increase in quality of legislation would provide enough economic benefits to cover the cost.

michaelbuckbee 2y ago
Theoretically, the agencies in the executive branch should fulfill this role.
theoreticalmal 2y ago
Isn’t this part of the benefit of lobbyists? Assume that every bill that goes before the legislature has someone who cares greatly (because if no one cared, it’s a problem that would have been solved beforehand), and you can guarantee at least two opposing viewpoints being represented by lobbyists, for “free” from the point of the legislative admin budget.
- finnthehuman 2y ago
  Unless, of course, the best policy position does not create enough concentrated financial incentive for someone to hire a lobbyist to advocate for it.
RattlesnakeJake 2y ago
> ...more money for staff. Specifically, this staff: https://www.reliks.com/lord-of-rings-hobbit/staff-of-gandalf-grey/ https://www.reliks.com/lord-of-rings-hobbit/staff-of-gandalf...
trogdor 2y ago
Congress has the Congressional Research Service. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Research_Service https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Research_Servi... and https://crsreports.congress.gov/search/#/?termsToSearch=&orderBy=Date https://crsreports.congress.gov/search/#/?termsToSearch=&ord... CRS reports are a phenomenal source of information.

cqqxo4zV46cp 2y ago

This is hilarious. Do you genuinely think this little of politicians? No, seriously. I know politicians are easy to dunk on, but do you genuinely think that this is the explanation? That this is even a likely explanation? They weren’t just, you know, having a laugh? This is out of touch, even for HN.

pk-protect-ai 2y ago

I believe it is totally the opposite. Every single one of the voters has read the bill and agreed unanimously on passing it through, because it makes a lot of sense. Modern psychology is a little better than astrology back in the day. Psychology is yet to become a proper science, once it accepts proper scientific methods and discards the voodoo of past days. Until then, hereby I vote for them to wear wizard hats in public!

yencabulator 2y ago
> Modern psychology is a little better than astrology back in the day. That really sounds like you're implying that modern day astrology is better. It's shocking how popular astrology still is.

datascienced 2y ago

It seems like a joke but judges wear wigs in the UK. It is a pure style/tradition thing why not start a new one!