3 ms·

A near-even split on the first try over a high-stakes issue is a pretty darned good showing. Lay into those supportive of the state violating every semblance of

A near-even split on the first try over a high-stakes issue is a pretty darned good showing. Lay into those supportive of the state violating every semblance of privacy, and then try again.

diminoten 13y ago
I said this before, but the closeness of the vote has nothing to do with how close the vote actually was. Once the whips figure out if a bill is going to pass or not, they then let people vote however will get them more money.
- bargl 13y ago
  I'm curious how whips work. Do you have anything I could read up on it to learn more? It makes sense from a certain perspective, but does that mean that they decided to look into how many people were going to vote no for sure (which was 217). Then the remaining legislators would get more money if they voted yes (205) or maybe they voted yes because it was what their constituents wanted. That's all speculation but it's seriously interesting and very disturbing.
  - diminoten 13y ago
    Once you know a vote isn't going to happen, the voting gets rearranged to look good. Since the outcome is the same, it doesn't really matter how the outcome happens, so long as the 'yes' or the 'no' is still a 'yes' or 'no'. And it's probably one of the least improper things that happens in US government. I'd also like to take a moment to explain why this vote doesn't have a chance, ever, and it's the exact same reason all spending cuts to defense don't generally go through - all it takes is one bad thing to happen, and suddenly every single person who voted to reduce defense spending/the NSA budget is at risk in their district. It's the easiest attack ad in the world to construct: "My opponent was one of the people who took away the NSA's power to defend this country, and as a result we were attacked again!" That's a guaranteed and immediate hit that's very easy to understand. What's much more complicated is the 'yes' argument. It's nuanced, confusing, many constituents don't even want it, and in general a big risk. The biggest win for members of congress is if no change actually happens, and yet they still get to have a voting record that shows they're against what the NSA is doing (exactly how it turned out). Those "yes" votes were probably pretty damn expensive for the congresspeople who got them, but they'd be HUGE liabilities if the vote actually passed. In other words, 'yes' votes were worth more if the 'yes' lost.
    - Amadou 13y ago
      While that is all true, it is still worth noting that worst case they still cared enough to be disingenuous about their voting records. If they believed that they could just get away with sweeping it under the rug, they would not even have tried to manipulate the optics of the vote. That's still a victory in the face of all the propaganda downplaying the importance of the issue.
      - diminoten 13y ago
        They are getting away with sweeping it under the rug. You're being pandered to by worthless voting records, if anything I'd be more upset were I in your position.
- bobwaycott 13y ago
  Like the sibling commenter asked, do you have any sources that break this down further? Your response there had too much on the attack/defense angle for campaigns. What exactly is the relationship between a whip, the passage of legislation, and the dollar valuation of voting yes/no? How are votes quantified into dollars in such a way that a whip figures out if a bill will pass, then lets reps vote 'however will get them more money'?
  - diminoten 13y ago
    It's all very googleable, check out the citations section of the related wiki pages for specific books. Most of what I know about the process comes from primary research made possible by living in DC and spending too much time in hill bars listening to windbags bloviate on their own importance. Also fictional TV. Because that's a great place to learn things about your government, right?

A near-even split on the first try over a high-stakes issue is a pretty darned good showing. Lay into those supportive of the state violating every semblance of privacy, and then try again.

diminoten 13y ago

I said this before, but the closeness of the vote has nothing to do with how close the vote actually was. Once the whips figure out if a bill is going to pass or not, they then let people vote however will get them more money.

bargl 13y ago
I'm curious how whips work. Do you have anything I could read up on it to learn more? It makes sense from a certain perspective, but does that mean that they decided to look into how many people were going to vote no for sure (which was 217). Then the remaining legislators would get more money if they voted yes (205) or maybe they voted yes because it was what their constituents wanted. That's all speculation but it's seriously interesting and very disturbing.
- diminoten 13y ago
  Once you know a vote isn't going to happen, the voting gets rearranged to look good. Since the outcome is the same, it doesn't really matter how the outcome happens, so long as the 'yes' or the 'no' is still a 'yes' or 'no'. And it's probably one of the least improper things that happens in US government. I'd also like to take a moment to explain why this vote doesn't have a chance, ever, and it's the exact same reason all spending cuts to defense don't generally go through - all it takes is one bad thing to happen, and suddenly every single person who voted to reduce defense spending/the NSA budget is at risk in their district. It's the easiest attack ad in the world to construct: "My opponent was one of the people who took away the NSA's power to defend this country, and as a result we were attacked again!" That's a guaranteed and immediate hit that's very easy to understand. What's much more complicated is the 'yes' argument. It's nuanced, confusing, many constituents don't even want it, and in general a big risk. The biggest win for members of congress is if no change actually happens, and yet they still get to have a voting record that shows they're against what the NSA is doing (exactly how it turned out). Those "yes" votes were probably pretty damn expensive for the congresspeople who got them, but they'd be HUGE liabilities if the vote actually passed. In other words, 'yes' votes were worth more if the 'yes' lost.
  - Amadou 13y ago
    While that is all true, it is still worth noting that worst case they still cared enough to be disingenuous about their voting records. If they believed that they could just get away with sweeping it under the rug, they would not even have tried to manipulate the optics of the vote. That's still a victory in the face of all the propaganda downplaying the importance of the issue.
    - diminoten 13y ago
      They are getting away with sweeping it under the rug. You're being pandered to by worthless voting records, if anything I'd be more upset were I in your position.
bobwaycott 13y ago
Like the sibling commenter asked, do you have any sources that break this down further? Your response there had too much on the attack/defense angle for campaigns. What exactly is the relationship between a whip, the passage of legislation, and the dollar valuation of voting yes/no? How are votes quantified into dollars in such a way that a whip figures out if a bill will pass, then lets reps vote 'however will get them more money'?
- diminoten 13y ago
  It's all very googleable, check out the citations section of the related wiki pages for specific books. Most of what I know about the process comes from primary research made possible by living in DC and spending too much time in hill bars listening to windbags bloviate on their own importance. Also fictional TV. Because that's a great place to learn things about your government, right?