Hacker News Reader

Comment by setr | Hacker News Reader

Shouldn’t the collective default be to simply vote “no” if it’s given like this

I don’t know why the behavior would exist otherwise..

If only it were that simple.

There's two major reasons I see why that doesn't happen. First, a 'no' vote is still taking a position. It requires additional explanation to differentiate "no because I couldn't understand it in time" and "no because I think it's a bad idea." That's a fair bit of nuance, which these days is... well often difficult to accurately and easily convey to others.

The second reason is that it's not just a matter of one vote per issue. It's not one massively complex issue that requires 5k+ pages to fully flesh out. It's a bunch of different stuff all jammed together, and votes can only cover the entire thing. Some of those things are often simple enough, and some are very time critical. Do you want to hold up the time critical bits for the rest of it?

If you do, can you get constituents to understand why, and agree with your decision to hold things up? For every voter that you can't convince, your political opponents now have an easy in. Can you afford that?

> First, a 'no' vote is still taking a position. It requires additional explanation to differentiate "no because I couldn't understand it in time" and "no because I think it's a bad idea." That's a fair bit of nuance, which these days is... well often difficult to accurately and easily convey to others.

This is very true, but why, in the year 2020, is it still true?

Why does it seem like we can argue only about object level matters, and almost no one [1] can see that the framework we run politics on top of is fundamentally flawed? Would it maybe help if we were to consciously force ourselves to conceptualize society/humanity as a video game, that has parameters and behaviors, and the state of the system can be acted on, but our actions will only be effective if the game allows it?

[1] A rare exception to this in my opinion is Jimmy Dore's initiative to force a floow vote on Medicare for All

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Medicare+for+All%22+%22ji...

What I like about this approach is that it kind of pulls the "invisibility cloak" off of political claims and rhetoric, exposing the truth that lies inside. It appears that he's going to lose this battle (a vote will not be held), but even so it has forced a new level of propaganda to be deployed into the memeplex on very short notice, making it much easier for the average Joe to see through it. I think this is a good strategy: take away control of the playing field, so politicians can't use pre-written and memorized rhetorical talking points to dismiss obvious desires like affordable healthcare, which has fairly bi-partisan support among voters.

https://www.newsweek.com/69-percent-americans-want-medicare-...

It doesn't really matter if M4A is not achieved (that's where we're at anyways) - the main strategic goal imho should be to bring awareness to the public mind of the notion that politicians are not being truthful (notice I am not saying they are lying) when they say that their goals and actions are to execute "the will of the people", or do what is "best" for the American population. Politics, as it is, is largely all theatre, although even the participants themselves may not actually be consciously aware of it.

"All the world’s a stage, And all the men and women merely players."

https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/56966/speech-all-the-...

> Why does it seem like we can argue only about object level matters, and almost no one [1] can see that the framework we run politics on top of is fundamentally flawed?

> Would it maybe help if we were to consciously force ourselves to conceptualize society/humanity as a video game, that has parameters and behaviors, and the state of the system can be acted on, but our actions will only be effective if the game allows it?

For those interested in the first question, and the answer to why the second question is not the right way to go, check out Adam Curtis's most recent film, HyperNormalisation [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperNormalisation

I'm a huge fan of Adam Curtis, and that particular documentary.

I think you're maybe misinterpreting his message - he describes our reality as if it is a video game that's been created for us to live in, which is my very point. Thinking of it this way allows one to see the system more clearly, and in turn manipulate it to one's own ends (and very easily, provided those embedded within it are unaware of the situation, which is very much the case).

If (even for the sake of discussion) one assumes this to be the case, then availing oneself of this very same technique (and do it better, leveraging superior thinking & magnitude of compute (via crowd-sourcing), lower requirements for stealth, etc) to fight back seems like a no-brainer to me.

Getting those who live within such a system to even consider this possibility on the other hand, this is not an easy task. I see no no-brainer way to go about this, other than just talking about it explicitly. I'm essentially proposing that we apply the very same systems analysis techniques that we would use at work to the very system we live within, but it seems this is a very non-intuitive idea.

And, of course, the current session is coming to an end very soon, and leadership could change. Two of the sponsors may soon be out of a job. Would the incoming administration sign off on this? Maybe, maybe not. So best jam it through now while no one is paying much attention.

Yes, it should be, but then you possibly end up voting "no" on something that is then weaponized against you in the next election.

"Senator so and so refused to support the end of violence against babies!!" or other such nonsense.

I wish more politicians would realize that this kind of nonsense will happen no matter how they vote or what they say and move on to voting and acting in a way that fits their values and what they represent.

Perhaps because there is entire political dance at play here where you toe the agenda lines of your whip in exchange for future political support?

The key problem is essentially the Hastert rule and its infection of the Senate. Legislation is only considered by leadership, who only concern themselves with counting beans.

This same thing happens in the House.

I never said it didn't, Hastert was Speaker of the House when he introduced it, but it's since come to dominate the legislative process in both chambers. I trusted my use of the word infection conveyed that meaning

The Senate is a gross and antidemocratic institution, but this sort of thing is not unique to the Senate. The nature of legislative bodies is such that compromise and voting while holding your nose is a thing everywhere.

The supreme power of the leadership more a symptom of the 50/50 political split, which empowers the party machinery. The legislative leadership weren’t household names at most points in time.

> The Senate is a gross and antidemocratic institution

In my state the senators are democratically elected, is that not the case in yours? Or is your statement lamenting the fact that the country gives representation to states as distinct entities?

It's very much not intended to be a democratic body so I'm not sure why you would fight on this hill. In my view we've essentially become a failed state because of one party's institutional stranglehold on the Senate.

The Senate is designed to ossify politicians and stop things from happening.

One of its nadir points in terms of accomplishments was preventing anti-lynching legislation from having a floor vote for 40-50 years.

They should probably abstain instead. Not having time to read what you're voting on seems like a good reason to abstain from voting on something. Voting "no" is making a policy decision with respect to the bill being voted on.

Move next business :-) or more sensibly table it so the non relevant to the budget is removed.

Then no bills would ever get passed again

Reply on news.ycombinator.com