ridin' miss daisy

[rone]

OK, someone explain to me again how bill riders can be considered a feature, and not a bug, of the legislative process. Because i just see them as a very underhanded way of sneaking policy into law, and the law doesn't need any further sneaky shit.

Comments

[therobbergirl.livejournal.com]

They are supposed to help protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. However, like modern fillibusters, the way they're supposed to be used and the way they are used is lamentable and irritating.

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

OK, someone explain to me again what this "tyranny of the majority" shit is.

Re:

[therobbergirl.livejournal.com]

In the simplest terms, the "tyranny of the majority" is when 51 people in a group of 100 people decide to anally rape the other 49 people.

like that recent Gallup poll...

[lara7.livejournal.com]

"If the primary election were held today, would you vote for the Democratic candidate, or the Anal Rape Party Candidate?"

Re: like that recent Gallup poll...

[therobbergirl.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but today's Repub uses Astroglide.

Re: like that recent Gallup poll...

[erikred.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but today's Repub uses Astroglide.

Funny, I don't recall seeing the Broken Glass and Razorwire variety of Astroglide the last time I was at Good Vibrations.

To quote Spider Jerusalem:
'You want to know about voting. I'm here to tell you about voting. Imagine you're locked in a huge underground nightclub filled with sinners, whores, freaks and unnameable things that rape pit bulls for fun. And you ain't allowed out until you all vote on what you're going to do tonight. You like to put your feet up and watch "Republican Party Reservation." They like to have sex with normal people using knives, guns, and brand-new sexual organs that you did not know existed. So you vote for television, and everyone else, as far as your eye can see, votes to fuck you with switchblades. That's voting. You're welcome.'

[huaman.livejournal.com]

Why's that tyranny instead of just the way the cookie crumbles in a simple majority vote scenario? Call me crazy, but I'd prefer a "tyranny of the majority" to a real tyranny, you know, the kind that comes with a tyrant.

Also, is it a tyranny of the majority if it's 51%, but not if it's, say, 75%? Is a 49% minority more worthy of whatever protection a bill rider would hypothetically provide than a 25% minority? And if I'm in that much of a minority perspective, how do I get a bill rider to protect me? Because I'm not going to have gotten anybody into office to draft bills or vote on them, who is actually going to be worried about it.

Mind you, I still can't wait to get the hell out of California and stop being anally raped by the tyranny of the reactionary PC dilettantes, but then those do appear to actually *be* a majority here, so, fine, whatever. I'm with rone on seeing bill riders as sneaky shit where no further sneaky shit is called for. Instead of waking up and finding out a provision to guarantee anal raping had been snuck in, I would prefer to actually be on the losing side of a 51-49 vote that explicitly stated its intent was anally raping me and my pals.

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

Goddammit, will you quit asking things before i get around to asking them?

Um. Anyway. What she said.

[ex-askesis860.livejournal.com]

I'd prefer a "tyranny of the majority" to a real tyranny, you know, the kind that comes with a tyrant.

One leads to the other. Case in point: Robert Mugabe. Without a fairly subtle constitutional framework, the majority can and will vote themelves right into the middle ages.

[huaman.livejournal.com]

Assuming I believe a sufficiently robust constitution will somehow prevent a simple majority from voting itself into the middle ages (and I've too much concrete evidence in front of me these days that would seem to argue that the contrary is true), I'm still not seeing how bill riders would prevent that from happening in a manner that was to the detriment of holders of the minority opinion.

The closest I can come to seeing how bill riders give more power to a minority opinion would be, for instance, if 49 voters believe the other 51 should be anally raped. "Damn," say the 49, "How are we ever going to get our anal raping bill pushed through?"

"I know," says one of the 49, "There are two guys among the 51 who are deeply, passionately committed to saving the spotted owl, which none of us care about and neither do most of the others. I bet we can get those two to vote with us in favour of anally raping the other guys, if we give them a rider that does something nice for spotted owls!"

And voila: what was a minority of 49 is now a tyrannical majority of 51, and the minority of 2 gets something it wanted as well: something nice for spotted owls, rolled into the bill about anally raping the now-minority. Who's been protected from sneaky shit *or* tyranny here, and what about this scenario seems so much more enlightened than voting oneself back to the middle ages?

[ikkyu2.livejournal.com]

You guys do realize you're debating the merits of (the original definitions of) democracy versus republicanism?

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

I really should've paid more attention in school.