Save the Internet - the pressure is working(avaaz.org)
avaaz.org
Save the Internet - the pressure is working
http://www.avaaz.org/en/save_the_internet/?cl=1425589399&v=11332
7 comments
Even at a rate of 1 name per second, this would take almost 11.5 days to read out all the names non-stop. Is there some kind of time limit for this kind of thing?
Nope. That's the point. It's called a filibuster.
The goal of the Senate is to be the worlds most deliberate deliberative body, which means that the voting doesn't happen until the discussion is well and truly done. Imposing a time limit would allow discussion to be quashed prematurely by manipulating the process.
Naturally, this open-ended system can also be gamed, by not letting a bill get to vote. This lets a determined minority prevent a measure from being passed even when that measure's support is technically in the majority. Some consider this a feature rather than a bug, as it prevents the minority stance from being completely disenfranchised.
This tactic was originally a weapon of last resort, but then its use increased. At some point, a new rule was enacted where discussion could be quashed by 60% (supermajority) vote. This effectively causes a two-tiered system to achieving a mandate, although senators were hesitant of setting the precedent of stopping the filibuster in case they needed to use it themselves later on. Recently it has come into vogue again, with the number of filibusters and threats of filibusters rising considerably.
The goal of the Senate is to be the worlds most deliberate deliberative body, which means that the voting doesn't happen until the discussion is well and truly done. Imposing a time limit would allow discussion to be quashed prematurely by manipulating the process.
Naturally, this open-ended system can also be gamed, by not letting a bill get to vote. This lets a determined minority prevent a measure from being passed even when that measure's support is technically in the majority. Some consider this a feature rather than a bug, as it prevents the minority stance from being completely disenfranchised.
This tactic was originally a weapon of last resort, but then its use increased. At some point, a new rule was enacted where discussion could be quashed by 60% (supermajority) vote. This effectively causes a two-tiered system to achieving a mandate, although senators were hesitant of setting the precedent of stopping the filibuster in case they needed to use it themselves later on. Recently it has come into vogue again, with the number of filibusters and threats of filibusters rising considerably.
There's no time limit, but a 60% vote can force him to stop.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States...
Edit: That's 60% of all Senators, not just those currently there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States...
Edit: That's 60% of all Senators, not just those currently there.
Edit: That's 60% of all Senators, not just those currently there.
Is it just me but the website title aptly means "voice" in Hindi (an Indian language).
"About us: Avaaz - meaning "voice" in several European, Middle Eastern and Asian languages - ..."
On a semi-related note, has anyone signed up for them? They don't comply with the CAN-SPAM act by not giving an unsubscribe link in the emails they send out.
I just checked and the last few emails I have do have an unsubscribe link. It's right at the bottom in 8 or 9 pt text.
The filibuster: it's a feature, not a bug.
Just curious: Who's going to read them?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
A small group can, if it's sufficiently organized, stop something like SOPA.
[deleted]