Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Big Tech lobbyist language made it verbatim into NY’s hedged repair bill

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 176 posts

Re: Big Tech lobbyist language made it verbatim into NY’s hedged repair bill

#41

Post by MichaelZuo »

comte7092 wrote: post #37
convolvatron wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was totally with you until the last sentence. please go on.

I mean it’s really about identifying rules that are anti majoritarian. On the federal level, the filibuster is an obvious example of a an anti majoritarian rule that creates perverse incentives. Going deeper, the way that the individual houses are structured gives significant power to committee chairs who gain power through seniority and fundraising for their parties, which creates centralized points of leverage for…

The structure of the U.S. government was explicitly designed to be anti majoritarian. For many people, in fact probably the majority of the population this is a feature.

Re: Big Tech lobbyist language made it verbatim into NY’s hedged repair bill

#42

Post by MichaelZuo »

QuillPen wrote: post #28
delecti wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can they make changes after he signed it though?

By passing a new law, termed a "chapter amendment". These are agreed upon by the governor and the legislature in advance of the governor's signature and passed and signed rapidly thereafter.

Do you have a link to the text of this 'chapter amendment'?

Re: Big Tech lobbyist language made it verbatim into NY’s hedged repair bill

#44

Post by pdonis »

comte7092 wrote: post #37
convolvatron wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was totally with you until the last sentence. please go on.

I mean it’s really about identifying rules that are anti majoritarian. On the federal level, the filibuster is an obvious example of a an anti majoritarian rule that creates perverse incentives. Going deeper, the way that the individual houses are structured gives significant power to committee chairs who gain power through seniority and fundraising for their parties, which creates centralized points of leverage for…

> it’s really about identifying rules that are anti majoritarian.

You say this as if anti majoritarian is a bug. It's not. It's a feature. The US system is supposed to prevent tyranny of the majority. That's why there are checks and balances in it. That's why the Constitution limits the powers of the branches of government, and why further limits were put in place in the Bill of Rights. The US system is not supposed to be a tool for the majority to enforce its will on everyone. It's supposed to be a tool for protecting everyone's basic rights and limiting government to certain particular functions, not to allow it to do whatever a 51% majority wants. That was the original idea of the founders of the US system.

I would say that, if anything, we have too much majoritarian thinking in the US today, and I would support amending the Constitution to put more roadblocks in the way of a 51% majority being able to simply run roughshod over everybody else.

> all of these rules get set by majority vote

Yes, and this is an example of too much majoritarian thinking; whoever has the majority in either house of Congress takes that as permission to gerrymander the rules however they like to favor their preferences.

Re: Big Tech lobbyist language made it verbatim into NY’s hedged repair bill

#46

Post by mistrial9 »

GeekyBear wrote: post #18
jessaustin wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One doubts anyone can muster the energy even to pretend to surprise in this case. It's worth keeping details like this in mind, however, when discussing society-destroying disasters like stupid wars in other hemispheres or insurance-firm-directed health care. We hear lots of arguments that boil down to: "don't criticize democracy; if the'merican people wanted something else they would vote differently!" As we see mor…

We're living in the second Gilded Age. >Political corruption was rampant, as business leaders spent significant amounts of money ensuring that government did not regulate the activities of big business—and they more often than not got what they wanted. Such corruption was so commonplace that in 1868 the New York state legislature legalized such bribery. Historian Howard Zinn argues that the U.S. government was acting…

ok - but you could see these things as persistent illness in any civilization of this size.. So, outrage at the existence alone is not constructive; instead treat the illness knowing that it will never completely go away. "checks and balances" you know?

there is a tendency to boil over and demand immediate change.. temper that, make longer commitments?

Re: Big Tech lobbyist language made it verbatim into NY’s hedged repair bill

#47

Post by TimTheTinker »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #41
comte7092 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean it’s really about identifying rules that are anti majoritarian. On the federal level, the filibuster is an obvious example of a an anti majoritarian rule that creates perverse incentives. Going deeper, the way that the individual houses are structured gives significant power to committee chairs who gain power through seniority and fundraising for their parties, which creates centralized points of leverage for…

The structure of the U.S. government was explicitly designed to be anti majoritarian. For many people, in fact probably the majority of the population this is a feature.

^ this. It turns out a government will more effectively avoid flagrant injustice if its structure makes it difficult to accomplish anything quickly without supermajoritarian agreement.

Re: Big Tech lobbyist language made it verbatim into NY’s hedged repair bill

#48

Post by comte7092 »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #41
comte7092 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean it’s really about identifying rules that are anti majoritarian. On the federal level, the filibuster is an obvious example of a an anti majoritarian rule that creates perverse incentives. Going deeper, the way that the individual houses are structured gives significant power to committee chairs who gain power through seniority and fundraising for their parties, which creates centralized points of leverage for…

The structure of the U.S. government was explicitly designed to be anti majoritarian. For many people, in fact probably the majority of the population this is a feature.

The pieces I talk about having nothing to do with the constitution, and they aren’t really a part of any explicitly planned design.

Now, do people claim that anti majoritarianism is good? Sure. Clearly there are people who benefit from this system. In addition, a lot of people do justify it who seemly don’t directly benefit economically, simply due to an ideological affinity.

Re: Big Tech lobbyist language made it verbatim into NY’s hedged repair bill

#49

Post by tromp »

comte7092 wrote: post #37
convolvatron wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was totally with you until the last sentence. please go on.

I mean it’s really about identifying rules that are anti majoritarian. On the federal level, the filibuster is an obvious example of a an anti majoritarian rule that creates perverse incentives. Going deeper, the way that the individual houses are structured gives significant power to committee chairs who gain power through seniority and fundraising for their parties, which creates centralized points of leverage for…

There should be incentives to keep bills simple.

Perhaps the threshold for passing a bill should increase with the bill's length.

Re: Big Tech lobbyist language made it verbatim into NY’s hedged repair bill

#50

Post by candiddevmike »

pdonis wrote: post #44
comte7092 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean it’s really about identifying rules that are anti majoritarian. On the federal level, the filibuster is an obvious example of a an anti majoritarian rule that creates perverse incentives. Going deeper, the way that the individual houses are structured gives significant power to committee chairs who gain power through seniority and fundraising for their parties, which creates centralized points of leverage for…

> it’s really about identifying rules that are anti majoritarian. You say this as if anti majoritarian is a bug. It's not. It's a feature. The US system is supposed to prevent tyranny of the majority. That's why there are checks and balances in it. That's why the Constitution limits the powers of the branches of government, and why further limits were put in place in the Bill of Rights. The US system is not supposed…

The alternative to majority rule is tyranny of the minority, specifically the minority with the most power/voice/money. I think what you're arguing for isn't against tyranny of the majority, but a limit to the power of the federal government/more local government.

For instance, the majority of the country wants universal healthcare and legalized cannabis, yet the tyranny of the minority keeps blocking these efforts for their benefit. Without majority rule, we have a ridiculously dysfunctional government that doesn't represent the people.

Post reply on HN