# A radical change



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> What's going on at the top is one of the results of unfettered capitalism. It's as destructive as the "I'm a victim so there's no point in trying" stuff you get from some on the other end.
> 
> Righties refuse to see that. What's happening now is a lot more than just "disparity." We are developing a class of rich people that reminds me of the stereotypical greedy rich people who care nothing about others. (I think Hillary Clinton is one of them, for what it's worth.)


This quote got me to thinking while on my run and it lead me to the following question about the US.

The situation in US politics is not good - this should come as a surprise to anyone.  And by all accounts - and I do not think that anyone disputes this - each party has between 40-45% of the population absolutely locked up. They simply are not going to vote for someone from the other party. Because of this, I would posit that they are not truly engaging in the process, so why don't we make it official and officially cross them off the list of eligible voters? Doing so would have multiple benefits:

- Elections would be much less expensive
- Candidates would be required to be much more knowledgeable
- Candidates would be much less likely to pander to groups and lobbying would be less effective

Obtaining your ability to vote would not be a difficult task, but would require some sort of medium depth of historical and current events, as well as a detailed understanding of how the governmental process works. And just to make sure that no one tries to take this down the -ist road, there would be no monetary, racial, gender, religious, or any other limiting factor that could be subject to bias.

I also have no hope that this will ever be adopted and that it goes contrary to the narrative we Americans like to portray to ourselves, but this would be similar to the system our Founders had - and they seemed to do alright...


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Electoral politics is as old as anything else and follows very basic rules. Lavish your constituents with gifts, be it in the form of gold, gladiator fights and victories in battle or welfare handouts and you'll be elected. Be able to do this while exempting nearly 1/2 the population from the burden of a federal income tax and you're all that much more assured of victory. 

If you want to cut down on corruption and make politicians more accountable, starve the beast. The biggest concentration of wealth in this country lies not with the 1% but with the Federal Government. The more money it has, the more people come sucking at it's teet.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

My proposition:

Limit political parties to two parties, our traditional Democrat and Republican. Any other party would not be allowed. As we do now, select the presidential nominee from each party at the national conventions, by delegate vote. The race, essentially, ends here, for the presidential candidates. What happens next is that the two parties compete for election to the house and senate seats, as they do now. The party that wins the majority in the house is the party that wins the White House. The minority party seats the vice president.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

I've since run this idea by a few people, including a friend who's in the state senate, and they like it. They said it would need some tweaking, e.g., the vice president might need a little power, such as giving him or her certain veto privileges with some types of bills. A law student even told me he is going to research the feasibility of this kind of change as a small paper for one of his political law classes.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

I feel like I fell asleep and woke up in Cuba.

Understanding that the idea would best be titled "A Modest Proposal," I can't agree. I'm a much bigger fan of a parliamentary form of government. It has its own imperfections to be sure (everything does), but, on the whole, it seems to hold more promise than what we've got now.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

I don't know. I like it. Maybe because it's my idea. HA! Why, if I were running things around here...!

In any case, for better or for worse, presidents don't make much impact anymore. They increasingly are mere talking heads, a public relations spokesperson to represent the country to the world. Beyond that, powerless and ineffectual. I don't think any president since perhaps Roosevelt, perhaps Kennedy, has really mattered.


----------



## Il Signor Crispone (Jul 18, 2014)

The answer is anarcho-monarchism.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

At the risk of ruffling feathers, I would advocate for a ducktatorship.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Duvel said:


> I don't know. I like it. Maybe because it's my idea. HA! Why, if I were running things around here...!
> 
> In any case, for better or for worse, presidents don't make much impact anymore. They increasingly are mere talking heads, a public relations spokesperson to represent the country to the world. Beyond that, powerless and ineffectual. I don't think any president since perhaps Roosevelt, perhaps Kennedy, has really mattered.


I disagree. While this POTUS has been more like that it is something of his own making. the POTUS is vested with incredible power as both head of government and state. He is the CIC of the most powerful military in the world, his word (at least to the extent that he can be trusted by others) still carries resonance and domestically he is the only nationally elected leader. He has the bully pulpit and can always use it to frame an argument or to move public opinion in a way no other elected official can.

While I'm sure BHO is a fine man, decent and well intentioned, he was also way out of his depth. I've said this before elsewhere but I truly believe he came into office convinced he could just charm his way through and so ideologically driven to think that as long as he represented the anti-Bush, everything would be fine.

This is a common mistake made by amateurs in not taking into consideration history. If the world were a perfect place prior to Bush and only after that did things go to hell I could see how one could take that position. While I'm sure historians will point to GWB's shortcomings in due time, I don't think our current POTUS is lacking for any of his own.

The relevancy of the office and of the person go hand in hand. To paraphrase Louis XIV, "'L'office c'est moi'.


----------



## Il Signor Crispone (Jul 18, 2014)

Duvel said:


> At the risk of ruffling feathers, I would advocate for a ducktatorship.


I think you're quackers.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

SG_67 said:


> Electoral politics is as old as anything else and follows very basic rules. Lavish your constituents with gifts, be it in the form of gold, gladiator fights and victories in battle or welfare handouts and you'll be elected. Be able to do this while exempting nearly 1/2 the population from the burden of a federal income tax and you're all that much more assured of victory.
> 
> If you want to cut down on corruption and make politicians more accountable, starve the beast. The biggest concentration of wealth in this country lies not with the 1% but with the Federal Government. The more money it has, the more people come sucking at it's teet.


Amen to that! I'm still reeling from the shock of reading in a news article a couple of weeks back that as many as 185 million Americans are receiving one or more forms of public assistance. For any who might argue, 'what's wrong with that?', our response should be a resounding, "just about everything!" Even more saddening is the realization that we are realizing almost no return on said investments...the situation is not getting any better, but rather it is getting progressively worse.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

That's because it's being referred to as investment. In then world I live in, and I suspect most of us as well, investments offer some return bigger than the original investment. With the exception of scant few programs, I've not seen that with government. Yet the answer always seems to be that the program is woefully underfunded and thus the reason for its poor performance.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

You appear to be suggesting that investment can only be made in order to make an accountable monetary profit, that the "return" on government or other investment must necessarily be monetised. Surely there is more to it than simple monetary profit?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ Not at all but I've yet to see any analysis performed on whether there are better ways of spending that money, or less money, and getting a bigger return. 

The worst schools districts in this country, those that have the highest drop out rate and the lowest test scores, spend more per pupil than the average. Yet anytime privatization or charter schools are mentioned the teacher's unions got bats**t.

The US government subsidized a company called Solyndra to the tune of ~$600 million and it went bankrupt. The list is long with government programs that just fail to deliver results. Those results are what I measure ROI when it comes to investment. 

The most successful government program ever, in my opinion, was the GI Bill. Elegant and simple; the federal government will pay for veterans to go to college.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> ^ Not at all but I've yet to see any analysis performed on whether there are better ways of spending that money, or less money, and getting a bigger return.
> 
> The worst schools districts in this country, those that have the highest drop out rate and the lowest test scores, spend more per pupil than the average. Yet anytime privatization or charter schools are mentioned the teacher's unions got bats**t.
> 
> ...


Disagree. It was Medicare. :devil:

Privatization/charter schools are no panacea. That's pretty much been proven. Schools can't do it alone, home environment has a lot to do with it. And it is very possible for public schools to turn themselves around and succeed: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattl...nce-tech-pays-off-in-soaring-graduation-rate/


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Anything the teachers unions hate I have to at least consider effective. 

Charters aren't a panacea but they are part of the solution. You may not like this but charter schools consistently turn out better test scores and cost less per student. It also gives parents a choice.

You're right about homelife having an impact but I'll go as far and say culture matters as well. Those who value an education and see it as a salvation will take responsibility for the excellence of schools within their community. Those who see it more as a public utility and as a babysitting service will see it otherwise.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> Disagree. It was Medicare. :devil:


Marshall Plan and Asian reconstruction.



> Privatization/charter schools are no panacea. That's pretty much been proven.


I must have missed the national legislation that gave charter schools a fair playing ground. Perhaps it happened when I lived in Prague.



> Schools can't do it alone, home environment has a lot to do with it. And it is very possible for public schools to turn themselves around and succeed: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattl...nce-tech-pays-off-in-soaring-graduation-rate/


That is a constant with all schools, therefore is a red herring.

I think we should take 50% of all of the endowments of the top 50 private universities and use it to start charter schools. After all, most of that money comes from evil rich people


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

SG_67 said:


> Anything the teachers unions hate I have to at least consider effective.
> 
> Charters aren't a panacea but they are part of the solution. You may not like this but charter schools consistently turn out better test scores and cost less per student. It also gives parents a choice.
> 
> You're right about homelife having an impact but I'll go as far and say culture matters as well. Those who value an education and see it as a salvation will take responsibility for the excellence of schools within their community. Those who see it more as a public utility and as a babysitting service will see it otherwise.


+1. Unions do not exist to represent the public good, but rather they represent the interests of their respective, generally narrow, slices of the population pie. This is particularly true when it comes to compensation issues! I for one am not inclined to conclude that unions are anything beyond a (assumed) necessary evil.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

eagle2250 said:


> Amen to that! I'm still reeling from the shock of reading in a news article a couple of weeks back that as many as 185 million Americans are receiving one or more forms of public assistance. For any who might argue, 'what's wrong with that?', our response should be a resounding, "just about everything!" Even more saddening is the realization that we are realizing almost no return on said investments...the situation is not getting any better, but rather it is getting progressively worse.


On the other hand, we have a small cadre of people who are becoming enriched in a manner and to a degree entirely unknown before the 21st century. The two phenomena are not entirely unrelated. Unfortunately we haven't found a way to enable the IQ-challenged to find work in the New Economy that endows those riches on the more fortunate and more talented.

It may be that jobs will soon become a quaint nostalgia. Planet Money had a fascinating discussion about robots, cybertechnology, and what they mean for the future of the Working Man: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/05/22/408834372/episode-626-this-is-the-end

One more thing: "public assistance" goes, in dollar terms, much more to the wealthy in the US than to the poor. Just remember that, all my GOP friends (and I'm a Republican myself).


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

SG_67 said:


> ... charter schools consistently turn out better test scores and cost less per student.


Do you have any statistics to back up this remark? Here in central Ohio they've not performed so well as your claim would suggest, but I'm open-minded on their performance elsewhere.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

MaxBuck said:


> Do you have any statistics to back up this remark? Here in central Ohio they've not performed so well as your claim would suggest, but I'm open-minded on their performance elsewhere.


This group from Stanford has a lot of studies. Glancing at the reports it seems that Ohio is indeed lagging in performance.

The intro on the nationwide report said that overall charter schools performed better than public schools.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

vpkozel said:


> This group from Stanford has a lot of studies. Glancing at the reports it seems that Ohio is indeed lagging in performance.
> 
> The intro on the nationwide report said that overall charter schools performed better than public schools.


Which group from Stanford?


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

MaxBuck said:


> Which group from Stanford?


The one I forgot to attach a link to, duh. 

https://credo.stanford.edu


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

vpkozel said:


> The one I forgot to attach a link to, duh.
> 
> https://credo.stanford.edu


Thanks.

Whatever else one thinks about charter schools, they unquestionably represent a living laboratory that can provide information on the science of learning that would otherwise be unavailable. The next few years will give us some fascinating data.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

MaxBuck said:


> Thanks.
> 
> Whatever else one thinks about charter schools, they unquestionably represent a living laboratory that can provide information on the science of learning that would otherwise be unavailable. The next few years will give us some fascinating data.


I agree, but they will face a tough fight because education unions are very powerful. And as much as people may not want to admit it, there is a very real benefit for an ideology to gain control of what young minds learn.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

vpkozel said:


> I agree, but they will face a tough fight because education unions are very powerful. And as much as people may not want to admit it, there is a very real benefit for an ideology to gain control of what young minds learn.


There's much truth in what you say, but in my experience even the most devoted education unionists tend to have the best interests of the students foremost in their minds. I don't intend this as support of the AFT or NEA, but rather support of individual teachers. They are in general a pretty doggone good bunch of people.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

MaxBuck said:


> There's much truth in what you say, but in my experience even the most devoted education unionists tend to have the best interests of the students foremost in their minds. I don't intend this as support of the AFT or NEA, but rather support of individual teachers. They are in general a pretty doggone good bunch of people.


I absolutely agree. I had 1 bad teacher in my entire school career and I have been extremely pleased with my kids' teachers as well.

It is the leadership of the union - any union - that I am wary of.

Edit - allow me to amend my last sentence. It is the leadership of any organization that I am wary of.


----------

