|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
sarbonn
Joined: 14 Oct 2008
Location: Michigan
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 7:26 am Post subject: |
 |
|
My biggest concern with any type of change is the ramifications that occur that are never expected. It's why revolutions are generally to be feared because no matter how great the intentions and how great the need for change might be in a society, there are Mule catalysts that can lead to some pretty horrific, one-road only results. And when that happens, being "right" for perceiving problems gives no benefit because you're stuck in a morass of horrific conditions that cannot be changed, and what you once had can never be recaptured.
That's the problem with where we are in our government right now. We need some kind of change to fix things, but any kind of change is going to be one that is influenced by rational actors that are looking out for themselves, not the greater good because in reality, the greater good is always one's self interests. I'd like to believe it's not always that way, but people are people, and the sheep have a tendency to move towards the easiest fields to graze in.
The sad part is we need some kind of change now because things haven't been working for awhile, and very few people are receiving the benefits of our society while so many others are paying the price. But there are so many people in the middle who are just getting by that are more frightened of not getting by than they are interested in doing something to make things better for their situation. The risks do not outweigh complacency, so you have no way of instituting change without unilateral actions, which again can lead to some pretty dismal results. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 16, 2010 1:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
The earlier mention of the hypothetical abolition of the Senate got me thinking a bit. A big difficulty for voters is just how many issues any given candidate is going to have to deal with. Social issues, economic issues, foreign policy issues, the list goes on. Each Congressman is expected to represent us on an immense variety of topics. As such, we're often left unable to vote for a candidate who really represents us as much as we'd like. When a candidate says things you like about the economy, but says things you dislike about social issues, what are you to do?
This could be resolved to some extent by dividing the current general legislative bodies into smaller, less powerful, more focused ones. Instead of having a vote for 2 Senators and 1 House member, you'd have a vote for a fiscal policy representative, a foreign policy representative, and so forth. This would allow you to put your vote behind more of the ideas that you actually support, and minimizing how much bad you have to vote for along with the good. It would also make it much easier to acquaint yourself with any given candidate, as the number of facts you have to know about them goes down dramatically. It also makes it easier to take action against a candidate you dislike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 16, 2010 2:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
A big difficulty for voters is just how many issues any given candidate is going to have to deal with. Social issues, economic issues, foreign policy issues, the list goes on. Each Congressman is expected to represent us on an immense variety of topics. As such, we're often left unable to vote for a candidate who really represents us as much as we'd like. When a candidate says things you like about the economy, but says things you dislike about social issues, what are you to do?
|
I don't think this is the crux of the issue. At some point, each person has to make a decision about who to support for what policies and each representative must decide. I also think it's an unworkable idea to divide things up by theme. It would be too easy and frequent for foreign policy 'senators' to pass a policy that doesn't take into account the fiscal policy decisions of that set of reps.
I do like the 2-house system. There is wisdom to forcing compromises between two houses. Washington was onto something when he described the Senate as a 'saucer' where things cool off. I would suggest tripling the size of the Senate but scrapping the state-based system we now have. Draw the senatorial districts across state lines in ways to create districts more evenly populated, say, 1 million residents. The radically disproportionate power of small states (Wyoming) compared to the large states (California) distorting the power of the minority. Let the states pass their marriage laws and cigarette taxes; let sub-state House districts control the purse strings of the national legislature; let supra-state representatives give advice and consent to presidential appointments and treaties.
I'm not convinced the residents of the small states are so self-centered that they would reject reforms along democratic lines. I am suspicious of vested interests in small states hanging on to their exaggerated powers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 16, 2010 3:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
A big difficulty for voters is just how many issues any given candidate is going to have to deal with. Social issues, economic issues, foreign policy issues, the list goes on. Each Congressman is expected to represent us on an immense variety of topics. As such, we're often left unable to vote for a candidate who really represents us as much as we'd like. When a candidate says things you like about the economy, but says things you dislike about social issues, what are you to do?
|
I don't think this is the crux of the issue. At some point, each person has to make a decision about who to support for what policies and each representative must decide. |
Yes, but most potential representatives will decide the way we want -- and thus represent our opinion -- only on certain topics. If we're going to work on the basis that people should vote for representatives who will enact policies they support, it's completely obvious that the current system actively minimizes our ability to do that.
Finding a candidate who will represent your opinion on every topic is functionally impossible. Finding 6 or 7 candidates who would do such a thing is quite a bit more plausible. As things stand, you're forced to keep supporting a candidate who does things you disagree with simply because you agree with him on other issues. This hurts accountability.
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| I also think it's an unworkable idea to divide things up by theme. It would be too easy and frequent for foreign policy 'senators' to pass a policy that doesn't take into account the fiscal policy decisions of that set of reps. |
All that means is that the system would need some polish. A hard limit on how funds were appropriated combined with a legal zero tolerance policy towards individual representative bodies going into debt could well leave us better off in that regard than we currently are, not worse off. You have to bear in mind that we all ready do spend more than our fiscal policy allows for. It's time to change that, and our current system clearly isn't achieving it.
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| I do like the 2-house system. There is wisdom to forcing compromises between two houses. |
The two house system we currently have is a recipie for corruption. Your suggestion doesn't actually change that.
No, something more substantial would be required to see real results. I'd rather just stick with the current system than try any of your half hearted solutions, because all they would do is give an opening to make things worse. Either we should change things substantially to address actual problems, or we should simply leave things as they stand.
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| I'm not convinced the residents of the small states are so self-centered that they would reject reforms along democratic lines. I am suspicious of vested interests in small states hanging on to their exaggerated powers. |
The residents of said states might not be, but their elected representatives certainly are. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 16, 2010 3:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Yes, but most potential representatives will decide the way we want -- and thus represent our opinion -- only on certain topics. If we're going to work on the basis that people should vote for representatives who will enact policies they support, it's completely obvious that the current system actively minimizes our ability to do that.
|
This is the old rubber stamp vs statesman argument. I come down on the statesman side. You seem to support the rubber stamp/vested interest/corrupt-bargain-with-the-money-boys argument.  I see value in each rep speaking up for the interests in his/her district, but in the end, their vote should be for what's best for the country, not necessarily for the narrow interests of their district. As I see it, you are arguing for the worst part of what we have now.
What we have is reps arguing and negotiating for the 'best' deal for the interests in the district and to heck with the country. It should be a 'reasonable deal' for the interests in the district and what's best for the country. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 16, 2010 3:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Once upon a time, a long time ago, when I was a teacher in an Iowa high school, I got into a debate (several times a semester) with the farm kids, most notably Jeff, Al and Brian. Their complaint was that the government was paying for lunches for the poor kids. That's socialism. That's encouraging dependency. (This was back in the halcyon days of Reagan when ketchup was a vegetable so we patriotic Americans wouldn't have to support the welfare queens.)
My point was what happens when the government doesn't buy their dads' corn, soy beans, pork and beef. What happens to the price?
My point is that each group has interests and needs, but someone must step back, take the broader view and find an acceptable medium. Everyone gets something, no one gets it all. A little disgruntlement all around is far better than a few satiated pigs and a bunch of desperate, murderous, vicious revolutionaries. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 16, 2010 5:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
Yes, but most potential representatives will decide the way we want -- and thus represent our opinion -- only on certain topics. If we're going to work on the basis that people should vote for representatives who will enact policies they support, it's completely obvious that the current system actively minimizes our ability to do that.
|
This is the old rubber stamp vs statesman argument. I come down on the statesman side. You seem to support the rubber stamp/vested interest/corrupt-bargain-with-the-money-boys argument. I see value in each rep speaking up for the interests in his/her district, but in the end, their vote should be for what's best for the country, not necessarily for the narrow interests of their district. As I see it, you are arguing for the worst part of what we have now. |
No, I'm arguing against the worst part of what we have now: voters being stuck voting for a representative they disagree with on many important issues because they happen to agree with them on other issues.
Human beings are incentive driven creatures. We need to be able to hold politicians accountable, or else they will inevitably lean towards corruption. The only means the average person has to hold their politicians accountable is the threat to vote them out of office. However, as things stand now, if we vote a politician out over one issue, we're forced to throw the baby out with the bath water. If I vote my representative out because I think he's being corrupt on health care, I may well lose a vote in congress for a number of policies I feel he represents me well on. I shouldn't be forced into that position, and neither should other voters.
By dividing our representatives up in terms of their responsibilities, we can much more easily hold them accountable, and we can much more easily put our support behind people who represent us more accurately.
Don't talk to me about statesmen. There are not enough such individuals to justify a system reliant on them.
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| What we have is reps arguing and negotiating for the 'best' deal for the interests in the district and to heck with the country. It should be a 'reasonable deal' for the interests in the district and what's best for the country. |
You're just rambling now, this has nothing to do with the merits of my proposal vs the current system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 12:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
I have a lot of respect for Ya-Ta's and others' position that reform carries its own hidden dangers. Not least since I have just defected from that position over the past year or so. I just do not agree with them in this case.
BTW, here is where I got the House of Lords slur:
| Quote: |
"When the U.S. Senate was created, the most populous state, Virginia, had 10 times as many people as the least populous, Delaware. Giving them the same two votes in the Senate was part of the intricate compromise over regional, economic, and slave-state/free-state interests that went into the Constitution. Now the most populous state, California, has 69 times as many people as the least populous, Wyoming, yet they have the same two votes in the Senate. A similarly inflexible business organization would still have a major Whale Oil Division; a military unit would be mainly fusiliers and cavalry....
"The Senate's then-famous "Gang of Six," which controlled crucial aspects of last year's proposed health-care legislation, came from states that together held about 3 percent of the total U.S. population; 97 percent of the public lives in states not included in that group. (Just to round this out, more than half of all Americans live in the 10 most populous states--which together account for 20 of the Senate's 100 votes.) "The Senate is full of 'rotten boroughs,'" said James Galbraith, of the University of Texas, referring to the underpopulated constituencies in Parliament before the British reforms of 1832. "We'd be better off with a House of Lords." |
Given that I'm fairly Federalist, I must feel things are pretty bad to go ahead and push such drastic reforms. But things are pretty bad, and have been for awhile. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 2:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Normally I'm not interested in tinkering with the Constitution-- a whole heck of a lot of work by smarter heads than I've got and the result is a lot of delicate balancing. However, things look broken now and the worst possible result is a system unable to cope with problems. There is such a thing as holding on too long to a failed system. I'm about 85% convinced we are there now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
