volkris @volkris@qoto.org
I think the most pressing and fundamental problem of the day is that people lack a practically effective means of sorting out questions of fact in the larger world. We can hardly begin to discuss ways of addressing reality if we can't agree what reality even is, after all.
The institutions that have served this role in the past have dropped the ball, so the next best solution is talking to each other, particularly to those who disagree, to sort out conflicting claims.
Unfortunately, far too many actively oppose this, leaving all opposing claims untested. It's very regressive.
So that's my hobby, striving to understanding the arguments of all sides at least because it's interesting to see how mythologies are formed but also because maybe through that process we can all have our beliefs tested.
But if nothing else, social media platforms like this are chances to vent frustrations that on so many issues both sides are obviously wrong ;)
Joined Dec 2022
The problem is that it's like people keep realizing that, and noting it, and then a few days later forgetting, treating the guy like he's the center of the universe, and then later once again realizing how impotent he is.
And repeat.
Trump has been impotent for a long time.
I sure wish we'd stop forgetting, and especially, I wish we'd stop treating him in a way that makes him feel big and important.
It's the only way he's going to really go away.
Keep in mind that House rules aren't really focused on bids. They don't require anyone to announce their candidacy or even accept it from others.
The members of the House, that we elected, are free to vote for whomever they want, so this is really a story of representatives rejecting each others' proposals than a story about any candidate's bid.
In any case, the position of Speaker is powerful under the rules of the chamber, and intentionally doesn't rely so much on voluntary cooperation. His authority would be strong, under the rules that grant him that authority.
That's probably part of why so many have chosen to vote to keep the House closed rather than get down to business under a powerful Speaker that they disagree with.
A slightly different answer is that because the #House rules are based on a hierarchy with a really powerful Speaker as I mentioned above, it's therefore really important to a) choose a good person to do the job, and b) get consent from members who would agree to live under the chain of command.
Any alternative to electing a new Speaker would at least threaten to undermine those outcomes, so the chamber is given no alternative that might tempt them away from getting it done.
It forces them to compromise now to hopefully avoid problems in the future.
@gabe For the rules of the House and Senate, a whole lot evolved over generations of experience as they felt out what did and didn't work. They also drew a lot of inspiration from older legislatures around the world, as you can see in their early historical documents.
In this particular case, contrast the House against the Senate.
In the #Senate, with only 100 "upstanding" members, there's time to indulge them all, so all senators are fairly equal under the rules. Even leaders often have to ask permission to act, just like everyone else.
The #House has so many more members, and which are less "respectable" people, so they require an overseeing Speaker to set the schedule.
Given that, then, if there's no Speaker then the one position to set a schedule is vacant and nobody to schedule anything other than electing a Speaker!
Keep in mind that the US has enough revenues to pay its debts. It would not default.
If the debt ceiling wasn't raised, the US would be legally bound to prioritize the paying of its debts to avoid defaulting.
Maybe someday the debt load would be so high that revenues wouldn't cover it, but we're nowhere near that point now.
And just to express my personal biases :) I would argue that #Fediverse platforms aren't all as limiting as #Twitter, giving a variety of interfaces focused on different content forms, and making it much more inviting to creators.
Me, I like to write, so instances without the tight Twitter character limits are SO MUCH MORE conducive to my bothering to post here.
For people who've asked why the #House keeps voting, it seems that's literally all they can do AND FURTHER, it's what they **must** do, under the rules of the chamber.
If they are in session, they have to be voting.
If the members-elect choose to adjourn until noon, they are committing their future selves to vote at noon. And keep voting so long as they're in session.
At this point in the House's processes there isn't an option for working on something else. This is the one, singular next order of business, to be overseen by the Clerk without a Speaker to choose a different task.
Procedures are fun!
So the design wasn't inadequate.
We just all voted to empower inadequate operators. And we reelected them over and over again.
But then, the whole point was for officials to answer to the people, and they got the answer when we approved of their management of government.
We got the government we wanted, as designed. We just need to stop wanting dumb things and electing dumb people to give it to us.
But that's not how this election process works.
By the rules of selecting a Speaker, there's no requirement that anyone actually be in the race, and in fact they regularly vote for people who refuse to run. They did so even this week.
The representatives that we voted to represent us are voting as they see fit, and the vast majority of them, Democrats and Republicans, are indicating that they think the House is better not operating than operating under the power of each others' candidates.
Democrats could easily sideline the hardcore Republicans, but they, too, are voting to keep it shut down.
*shrug*
It doesn't though.
The system was specifically designed with the assumption that good faith couldn't be counted on. The framers spoke at length about that kind of concern as they engineered our procedures.
If nothing else, this is the root of the "if men were angles" quotation and a huge motivation for checks and balances at the core of the US design.
@sevignes@mas.to
Yes, adding specialized information is just one example of a use case.
Or, related to a specific example today, if I had a bunch of followers from my hometown, and someone else posted a joke that would be *extra* funny to us but not to the poster, then I would QT the joke with the added line, "Sounds like Blah Blah's Restaurant, right?!" and tag friends.
Without QT there's no good way to amplify the joke like that. Either the line is disconnected from the joke--clicking through the link ruins the pacing--or I'm replying to someone with something their followers wouldn't get.
QT enables many such positive use cases, empowering expression.
@hudsonplaskoff@mastodon.world
That runs into problems with the Rules of the House where requirements for majority votes would hamper a true coalition government.
Congress operates very differently from Parliament.
But a handful of centrist Democrats could resolve this pretty quickly, should they break ranks to get the work started.
Honestly, if more people had that approach to US politics, US politics would probably be in a better place.
The politicians spend far too much time showboating for people who don't really follow it all closely instead of actually doing a good job.
I always tell people, if they're not interested in technicalities and CSPAN, they will have better lives just reading books out under trees.
Well, I'm not sure they DO expect different results.
We don't get to have a clear picture into what's going on behind the scenes as they negotiate, but in the end this is not just some sort of figurehead.
The Speaker has a lot of authority in the House to direct processes, and members honestly don't agree on giving that power to anyone.
They're currently voting against giving anyone that power because they can't agree on anyone who would wield it well.
By the rules, better to conduct no work than do actually bad things.
Yep! You put your finger on it.
The defining of regions is a very complex topic that has to weigh so many factors, so we end up spending a lot of time and energy doing our best to do it as well as we can.
It's very subjective, based on subjective valuations.
BUT we've decided that representing diverse regions, communities, and interest groups is important enough that we accept that cost.
There's room for people to disagree about the value of doing this, but for my taste I'm a big supporter of it, as I really like to have that national diversity represented in our legislative institutions.
@J12t@social.coop I wonder if it wouldn't be trivial for Mastodon to allow a username of @@example.com that the webfinger would resolve to the default single user account.
@J12t@social.coop
Ah, I assume it was a choice of the UI designers not to bother users with the http urls, figuring users would rather see concise username schemes.
@sarahc regions are more likely represented when seats are allocated on the basis of region :)
The other thing is that in the US system we hold representatives personally accountable for their actions. I keep track of how MY member is voting, and I call him and yell at him.
Proportional voting breaks that link as well.
I'd say proportional voting has a place in some circumstances, but the US is big, diverse, and has complex challenges that our voting system has to deal with.
I WOULD absolutely get away from first past the post, though. Still elect specific reps, but do it through ranked voting.
@J12t@social.coop if you check the first link below, my understanding is that ActivityPub does use such URLs behind the scenes. A client like Mastodon translates the @ address into URLs.
And @bobwyman I thought I came across something somewhere saying that DIDs were supported, but I can't find it right now.
I think the most pressing and fundamental problem of the day is that people lack a practically effective means of sorting out questions of fact in the larger world. We can hardly begin to discuss ways of addressing reality if we can't agree what reality even is, after all.
The institutions that have served this role in the past have dropped the ball, so the next best solution is talking to each other, particularly to those who disagree, to sort out conflicting claims.
Unfortunately, far too many actively oppose this, leaving all opposing claims untested. It's very regressive.
So that's my hobby, striving to understanding the arguments of all sides at least because it's interesting to see how mythologies are formed but also because maybe through that process we can all have our beliefs tested.
But if nothing else, social media platforms like this are chances to vent frustrations that on so many issues both sides are obviously wrong ;)
Joined Dec 2022
volkris's choices:
