« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

The Silly Ideas We Still Standby

The philosophy of conservatism as defined by dictionaries declares it to be a disposition towards preserving the established status quo and advocating for the gradual change of policies. I’ve never liked that definition. While it is true that many traditionalists idolize the golden days of the past, this does not preclude conservatives advocating for the advancement of society. Be that in innovation in science and technology, a healthier environment, a higher standard of living, a robust economy, or a brighter future where limited government, constitutionalism and the liberty of the individual stands paramount. We believe in the progress of society.

What is to blame is that as the human race, we have a knack for clutching to the ‘old ways’. Regardless of how inane our practices are, the argument stands as “This is how we’ve always done it! Why should we change?!”  This argument aggravates me to no end. It is fallacious and illogical, and hacks me off because my personality is one that embraces simplicity, clarity and common sense. I see no point in continuing policies that at their core make no practical sense other than “that’s what we do.”

Today I’ve decided to collect five of these senseless policies together in hopes of persuading the end of these stupid practices that we still embrace. With your help we can dig these policies their grave. So, without much further ado I present to you the Top 5 silly ideas that are long, long overdue:

#1: The Imperial System

There is nothing more dumb than our continued use of the US imperial measurement system. Feet, miles, gallons, ounces, fluid ounces, pounds, barrels, pints and Fahrenheit all make the Baby Jesus cry. How many inches are in two and a half miles? What percentage of a pint is three fl ounces? I couldn’t honestly tell you because the imperial system is that screwed up.

We are constantly told that the American education system is in shambles as compared to the rest of the world in math and science. Well duh. The very foundation of our maths and sciences is an incoherent mix of senseless babble and we expect our students to make sense of that? We ought to be ashamed. The US is only one of two countries in the world that has not adopted the International System of Units as the official system of measurement and that’s an embarrassment.

The first attempt at metrication in the US failed in the 70s and 80s because Americans were just too stubborn to listen to their HS math and science teachers. However, we’ve still made progress. In the grocery store our food labels say both 17 FL OZ [1 PT 1 FL OZ] (illogical) and the metric equivalent of 500 ML (easy) and our American cars list our speed in both mph and in km/hr. The dual usage is great, but we need to take the next step. Our state governments need to start putting up metric speed signs, our companies need to drop imperial units on packaging and our Federal government needs to adopt the SI units as our official system of measurement.

We deserve to have a language of science and math that is both coherent and understood by the other 96% of the world.

#2 Using the Penny

There is nothing more worthless than what a single penny is worth today. If a single penny appeared in your pocket every minute of every day for an entire year, you’d make $5,256 a year. That’s only about a third of what minimum wage pays or ~ $2,000 less than what the funeral would cost if you had 1,314kg of pennies dumped on your head. Simply put, if your job was to pick pennies of the ground, you’d be living in poverty. Pennies are THAT worthless. When it becomes common practice to leave money behind at a cash register in a penny jar, that money ceases to become a form of money at all. It no longer has any value as a medium of exchange and needs to be eliminated.

In addition, the cost of minting pennies to US taxpayers is not a small amount. In 2012 it will cost us $60,200,000 to produce all the pennies we mint this year, plus another a several billion dollars in time and wasted efficiency as we stand in queues waiting for the cashier to count out worthless pieces of metal. Arguments against the elimination of the penny — it will cause inflation, it will hurt charities, “I don’t know how to round numbers” — are baseless and have been proved wrong time and time again as tens of countries have successfully eliminated their worthless currency denominations without looking back (* Australia, Brazil, UK, Denmark, Finland, Hong Kong, Hungary, Israel, New Zealand, Sweden and most recently Canada, which stopped production of its penny in April).

#3 Printing One Dollar Bills

It is estimated that eliminating the dollar bill and replacing it with a coin will save the US taxpayer $146,000,000 per year. Low value currency denominations like the $1 bill, quarter and dime are made as coins for the sole reason that coins provide the durability and cost savings that paper bills cannot provide. Switching to a dollar coin will recognize this in addition to the hundreds of millions of dollars that will be saved in the increased ease of use of vending machines, parking meters, laundromats and disgruntled cashiers who have to deal with crappy, filthy dollar bills. Small business groups like the vending machine industry and food service industries have practically begged for us to switch as it would lessen the cost of business for them, but we continue to defy them with old fogey defense tactics.

These include but are not limited to: “I’m too cheap to give strippers a $5 bill,” “I’m too lazy to carry a coin in my pocket,” and “Even though the blind and visually-impaired elderly cannot differentiate between $1 and $5 bills, but I’m going to whine about coins even though I still have the capacity to see and feel.”

A simple, cost-friendly and logical step towards a healthier economy would to be immediately eliminate the dollar bill in favor of the dollar coin.

#4 Teaching Cursive

I’m not sure if I’ve even actually met someone who still advocates the usage of cursive writing, but given that our kids are still being taught to write in cursive instead of typing shows that they’re still out there in force. Fact is while legible printing is still a valid and useful skill for young ‘uns (ease of communication, motor skills) to learn, we’ve progressed to the point where the value of typing and computer literacy skills has overwhelmed that of cursive’s. That holds true for both the employer and in our daily lives. Parents, school boards and state education boards need to end this waste of limited classroom time.

#5 The Electoral College (h/t cgpgrey)

Probably the most controversial item in my list, the electoral college serves absolutely no purpose in governance other than to confuse the electorate and disenfranchise millions of voters by making some voter’s vote worth more than other voter’s votes. If conservatives stand in opposition to vote fraud because it disenfranchises those of us who follow the rules, we need to support sending the archaic Electoral College to this history books because in both situations the value of our vote is being robbed.

As it stands, the Electoral College doles out three electoral college votes to every state first before the remaining EC votes are allotted proportionally. This results in 19 states having an increased share of the vote, and the remaining states being robbed of their fair share. For example, a Washington D.C. vote is mathematically equivalent to the votes of 3 Texan voters. So not only do Texans have little say in the Presidential primaries, but they actually have little say in the national election as well. This is indefensible.

One might argue that the EC protects smaller states from the tyranny of the larger states, but in practice the EC has the opposite effect. In the past 2008 elections, McCain and Obama made campaign stops in only 18 states, of which only 5 of those states were in the bottom 25 smallest states. The winner-take-all structure of the EC focuses the presidential campaign onto only a handful of swing states and their issues (FL, PA, OH, VA receiving 57% of the visits and 55% of all election money in ’08) at the expense of every other single American. The vast majority of the country is ignored because it’s strategic to do so.

The other fear concerning abolishing the EC is that candidates will only focus on big population centers, which ignores the same mathematical argument we conservatives use to argue why public transit will never work in the US. The top 100 largest cities in the US only makes up only about 20% of our population. A President who only ever focused on large population centers would lose by 80% of the vote.

The EC system is an archaic and unfair practice that allows candidates to ignore almost all voting Americans. It further produced winning presidential candidates in 1876, 1888 and 2000 for which the majority of the country did not support. If the same held true for the Superbowl (EG the Pats won 17 to the Giant’s 21), there’d be a revolt. Or is the control of the governance of our country not that important?

COMMENTS

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Thanks for sharing.

    • zachv

      Your comment makes not a lick of sense in the context that we have an amendment process written into the Constitution so that we may make corrections to an imperfect document.

      The 12th Amendment, for example, which revised the original Electoral College created by the original Framers or the 17th Amendment which established direct election of US Senators by popular vote.

      So am I going to get any insightful tips out of you — like why we would should preserve the EC or why the 17th Amendment is apparently Constitutional heresy — or are you more comfortable just making nonsensical grumpy potshots?

      • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

        .

        • Repair_Man_Jack

          >>>>>The philosophy of conservatism as defined by dictionaries declares it to be a disposition towards preserving the established status quo and advocating for the gradual change of policies. I

          • zachv

            I do generally believe that social change ought be taken slowly and with caution and that our history and our forefathers deserve the honor and respect they demand.

            But I am wary of traditionalism and “the past is inherently better” type of thinking because the history of Western Civilization is not a happy one: Slavery, women’s suffrage, religious feuds (Catholics and Protestants), the existence fascism and communism, economic serfdom, persecution of immigrants (e.g. the Irish), dowries and arranged marriages, the practice of indulgences and barring the common man from reading the Bible. Just to name a few.

            None of these institutions are signs of a vibrant or health culture in respect to the ideologies of classical liberalism or today’s modern conservatism , but all of these were once common practices praised (or practiced) by “tradition”.

          • lineholder

            Rule of holes, zachv…rule of holes.

          • zachv

            I only think making the statement “the past is inherently better” is incorrect, and I disagree with the pejorative that “conservatives are stuck in the past”.

          • Repair_Man_Jack

            The whole argument posited by SPengler has to do with the cyclical nature of developing a Culture >>> Becoming a civilization >>>> Succombing to Rot and then reinventing an affirmative culture. We are at the point where we need to reinvent the affirmative culture. There is no direction other than down with what we have at the present.

            Oh, and then there was this precious jewel of an observation…
            “the history of Western Civilization is not a happy one: ”

            1) Define Happy.
            2) Tell me which civilization better meets that crierion than ours.

            Also, if you had actually read Spengler, you would be aware that what you refer to as “Western Civilization” is not really just one culture.

            You have Magian (Middle Eastern impact – major Monotheistic religions),
            Classical (Greece, Rome, Byzantium), and Gothic (Northern and Central Europe) before you ever get to the modern West.

            It truly helps to read history first and then criticize.

          • zachv

            Or what his theories are.

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            nt

          • zachv

            Or what his theories are.

            Sorry. :(

          • Repair_Man_Jack

            to conflate his writings with what you saw as ignorant….

          • zachv

            You and I conflate Paul Krugman’s Keynesian economic writings with ignorance on a daily basis. He’s a Nobel Laureate and writer for one of the most establish papers in American.

            I and others don’t poo-poo you for disagreeing with his writings, now do you?

          • tnfriendofcoal101368

            is selling woof tickets to tax job creators at 70% “and above”, has stumped that the current deficit is too low and radically increased government spending is called for to “end this depression”. The fact that he is a nobel laureate only shows those picking that award are the same folks that brought you the European meltdown.

          • zachv

            I don’t give a rip about a 19th Century German’s theories any more than I do Krugman theories. But maybe I should go and re-read my Oswald Spengler Paul Krugman?

          • gekster

            ntntntnt

          • lineholder

          • gekster

            And now zach is using that to give Kugman credibility.
            The guy is an economist like I am a rocket Scientist.
            Wait, I am.
            Ohh, never mind. That was last week.
            This week I’m into Rocket Surgery.

            It’s in the same building. ;)

          • zachv

            However many Nobel’s Krugman has. He’s a total loon.

            … and I liked the joke gek. I laughed out loud. :)

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            As an economist who once did real and valuable work concerning free markets. He knows damn well that he is selling a lot of snake oil.

            But he does it anyway because he discovered about 12 years ago that it pays well to be a left wing mouthpiece, and you get invited to all the best parties.

            In short, he is a liar and a sellout.

          • streiff

            nt.

        • zachv

          n/t

        • zachv

          Section 8 – Powers of Congress

          To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

          :|

          Congress was giving the power to regulate the currency and system of measurement by the Constitution because these things are that important to the functioning of our society.

          Maintaining our currency and system of measurement so that they properly function is a duty of Congress that we have failed to do.

          • acat

            Just because you don’t *like* our current system does not mean Congress have *failed* to create *a* system.

            It simply means that you don’t *like* the system that Congress has created.

            Your dislike is insufficient to change it.

            Mew

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            Don’t demand proof.

            That’s anti-scientific. You have to accept Metric on faith. Or you will go to Eurohell.

          • acat

            It makes the fuel efficiency of my 4×4 crew cab pickup sound better.

            Mew

          • rightlane1111

            Besides…that’s why people from all over the world come to America. If their systems were so great (engineering excepted/metric)…why does everyone want to move into America?

            Our immigrants came here to get away from inequality. Looking at the Europe…I don’t want what they have…I love this country.

          • acat

            Although the recent decimalization has dumbed it down a tad.

            Mew

          • tnfriendofcoal101368

            or a smartphone….the apps on those have revolutionized the Units of Measure conversion industry. Revolutionized I say…what was once only the mundane task of the engineering and scientific elite is now available to all with the app on a smartphone!!!!

          • zachv

            “Our system requires a certain .. mental flexibility and rigor.”

            .. as an example of why our current measurement system needs to be changed in favor of the metric system.

            The ruler is not what should be the primary focus of understanding (what being measured should be), but that’s what it turns out to be with the mental flexibility and rigor that using our system requires. As a system of measurement, it thus fails.

          • acat

            is insufficient justification to change. In fact, the stupidity of the population is precisely why *not* to change!

            Mew

          • lineholder

            Wrong! The American people are and always have had a way of their own in doing things…you know, that pesky little “spirit of independence thing”?

          • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

            Lead us, Evolution, lead us
            Up the future’s endless stair;
            Chop us, change us, prod us, weed us.
            For stagnation is despair:
            Groping, guessing, yet progressing,
            Lead us nobody knows where.

            Wrong or justice, joy or sorrow,
            In the present–what are they,
            While there’s always jam-tomorrow,
            While we tread the onward way?
            Never knowing where we’re going,
            We can never go astray.

            To whatever variation
            Our posterity may turn
            Hairy, squashy, or crustacean,
            Bulbous-eyed or square of stern,
            Tusked or toothless, mild or ruthless,
            Towards that unknown god we yearn.

            Ask not if it’s god or devil,
            Brethren, lest your words imply
            Static norms of good and evil
            (As in Plato) throned on high;
            Such scholastic, inelastic,
            Abstract yardsticks* we deny.

            Far too long have sages vainly
            Glossed great Nature’s simple text;
            He who runs can read it plainly,
            ‘Goodness = what comes next.’
            By evolving, Life is solving
            All the questions we perplexed.

            On then! Value means survival-
            Value. If our progeny
            Spreads and spawns and licks each rival,
            That will prove its deity
            (Far from pleasant, by our present
            Standards, though it may well be).

            C.S. Lewis, Evolutionary Hymn

            * Archaic organic instruments referenced by the heathen in the orgy they blasphemously deemed football and 0.9144 m in length (or thereabouts).

          • morstar150

            Who knew that this site brought such culture?

            Thanks for sharing that CincoSolas!

          • Repair_Man_Jack

            -nt

          • Viet71

            1. Put real physical education back into public schools, K-12.

            2. Make all high school kids take Algebra I, plane geometry, and four years of English.

            1 and 2 done through state-by-state legislation.

            3. Replace Obama with Romney.

          • zachv

            As Maha-Rushi would say, “Right on, right on!”

          • acat

            2a Mandate four years of English in high school.
            2b Revise math education as follows:
            1. Mandate a course in basic symbolic logic in middle school.
            2. Mandate a basic number theory in middle school.
            3. Mandate Algebra 1 in high school
            4. Mandate Geometry 1 in high school.

            Ironically, this sounds about like what I had to achieve to get out of high school … but I think I took a couple English credits as “other” because I found writing more interesting than basket weaving.

            Mew

          • Viet71

            n/t

          • aesthete

            1) Fix the number of representatives in the House to population: one representative for every 20,000 people.

            2) Include a “none of the above” option. If this option receives a substantial amount of support, the election is started over with all previous candidates barred from participating.

            3) Move towards the alternative voting + system, or a system of local elections superior to FPTP.

            4) Establish an elected body entrusted only with repealing laws.

            5) Require all non-budgetary legislation to require > 66% majority to pass. Require any budget which spends more than last year’s tax revenues to require > 66% majority.

            6) Establish an elected body tasked only with repeal of legislation. Repeal of legislation would be subject to a simple majority vote.

            7) Establish that all legislation must have a sunset time of, at most, 10 years. Any legislation which does not receive > 50% vote a year after sunset is stricken from the body of enforceable laws.

            8) Repeal the 17th.

            9) Make HS economics, logic, rhetoric, and civic education part of core curriculum. Establish vouchers for both private schooling and homeschooling equal to the amount that public schools spend per pupil. Allow money not used by private schools to be used by parents on other educational materials.

          • civil truth

            Pick a certain date, say July 4, 2017, after which all existing Federal legislation passed before Jan 21, 2017 is null and void.

          • aesthete

            of a system which could maintain the current democratic structure and previous laws, while also providing mechanisms for changing them and reducing government.

            I wouldn’t mind your idea, though.

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            Pass a law requiring that any new regulation coming from any regulatory agency must be preceded by the termination of two previous regulations.

          • civil truth

            Reduce salary by $100/week per regulation for every individual involved in the chain of approval.

          • acat

            bureaucrats take off the books and *do not replace*. (applies to all bureaucrats who *had been* in the chain of approval .. some kid way down the food chain will get stuff done because he wants the steak quesadilla instead of the beef one…)

            Mew

            (note – the $10/week bonus extends for 1 year .. no gravy train lasts forever…)

          • Dave_A

            If the first class of the day was organized PT….

            I also find pushups a more paletable ‘treatment’ for childhood obesity than unleashing the ‘food police’ on schoolchildren & making everyone eat vegan gruel…

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            that the kids who have early phys ed are much more teachable. The ones who don’t have phys ed till the end of the day are a pain.

          • avgjo

            of the folks you named.

            Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t see any of them saying Congress has no such power.

            I only see comments (rightly IMO) saying that it’d be a big, unnecessary waste to convert here in the USA.

            I can use either system, but as someone correctly noted, one system is as good as another. Newton used the English system.

            It is analogous to geometry (indeed, measurement and geometry are closely linked) – the units need only be consistent.

          • zachv

            Would you not say that Conservatism advocates Constitutionalism?

            Wherefore is the logic in saying that changing the systems of weights and measurements is “not conservative” other than you hadn’t read that part of the US Constitution yet?

          • avgjo

            I don’t think those fellas said that, either.

            All I gathered from their posts is that it would be expensive and cumbersome to switch and that the benefits would not outweigh the costs.

  • civil truth

    Right now, the Democratic machines in the urban centers are mostly in deep blue states, so running up the total is just bouncing the rubble higher. But if running up these totals could shift the election – as under a popular vote – we’d be creating a market for massive registration and vote fraud that would make Presidential elections a Democratic sinecure. Not to mention lots of other problems.

  • JSobieski

    The electoral college system is the best way to compartmentalize fraud. If we go to a different system, large cities (like Chicago) will have an incentive to produce as many votes as are necessary to achieve their objectives.

    I use the metric system all the time, but that is no reason to force anyone to change for little reason. The science/engineering folks are already using metric, so who is hurt by the existing policy?

  • checkmate2012

    I’m not clear based on your comment as it seems to be contradictory. I like the system since it is representitive of all states, not just the mass vote on the coasts.

    Slowly the Left is trying to eliminate the EC and I strongly disagree. But I do agree w/your comment that Chi-Town and others will bus them in for their objectives which are not mine. Confused…

  • zachv

    The whole reason we have created systems of measurement is so that we may have a universal and coherent form of communication. Asking who is specifically hurt misses the point by a large margin, unless you’re after me listing out every time some American ruined his dinner because he didn’t have an accurate system of measurement.

    I should also ask what you’re positioning is on English being taught in schools or English being the standard language in the US? Should we pursue a standard language so that everyone can communicate with each other?

  • bogornes

    … to reduce or “compartmentalize” fraud. I agree, it reduces incentives for fraud in over 40 states, but at the high cost of lessened voter representation (“Hey, your vote is meaningless, so why cheat???”). The greatest failing of our present system thereby becomes a perverse and hollow virtue. That’s your argument? Of course, our present system encourages cross-state registration, and still does nothing to reduce voter fraud in large cities in battleground states (Cleveland, Cincinatti, Miami, Las Vegas….).

  • JSobieski

    You want to save money by not coining pennies and not printing dollars, but you want to redo all the signs and documents using measurements?

    I don’t think our dual-system for measurements is in the top 10,000,000,000,000 list of problems, and fixing it will cost money—and get people hacked off.

  • JSobieski

    eyes of everyone but science/engineering types.

  • civil truth

    Like the firfurfor* :)

    To echo others above, the imperial system came from reference to real-life objects and situations. And some delightful history in some cases, like the rod. We’d be poorer for losing that in the name of abstract “scientific efficiency”.

    *(firkins per furlong per fortnight)

  • JSobieski

    Compartmentalizing fraud is an ADVANTAGE not a disadvantage. It limits the scope of fraud.

  • http://stevemaley.com Steve Maley

    1. I’m an engineer and I deal with the Imperial system all the time. It may cause difficulty for someone who can’t grok 8th grade algebra, but engineers learn backwards and forwards in about 6 (non-metric) weeks and never look back.
    2. Penny – OK we agree on this.
    3. Americans have voted 3 times on dollar coins.
    4. Op cit.
    5. Our system is full of undemocratic institutions that were designed to preserve the rights of the weaker vs the stronger, in this case smaller states vs larger states.

    If you think the Electoral College should be done away with, how about our most undemocratic body, the Senate? Consistency being the hobgoblin of small minds. (note to barrypopik: I used the quote knowing full well it’s inaccurate.)

    To start all that blather off, you completely misrepresent the philosophy of conservatism.

    Bonus points for “maths” and “queue”: you write and think lie a Brit. Methinks you would be happier elsewhere, like Canada, the UK or another blog.

  • checkmate2012

    Sorry misread.

  • zachv

    Our system of measure defeats everything that a system of measurement is supposed to do! It’s not standardized, it’s not universal, it’s confusing, it’s difficult to use and you can’t even derive fundamental measurements (1 liter of water is 1 kg, 1 meter^3 is 1,000 liters) with it! The whole point of having a system of measurement is to make it easier to communicate, which the imperial fails to accomplish.

    The problem is, it’s so ingrained in our heads, that actually doing something easier, doing something that’s more logical, doing something that is so obvious that we shouldn’t even have a debate about it becomes some terrible thing that we continue to frustrate ourselves because we’re too dumb and lazy to go out and fix.

  • zachv

    Pick one or the other. Do we look to standardize our languages of communication or do let everyone speak their own gibberish? :D

  • aesthete

    The assumptions regarding #1-3 assume that changing these things is frictionless and costless. #5 is not a great idea, either: frankly, if we’re going to reform our system at a fundamental level, we should be looking at alternatives to first past the post (the real elephant in the room) and strengthening of the federalist system.

  • Dave_A

    Is the meter itself, because most Americans make the (inaccurate, but good enough) equivocation of 1m = 1yd.

    What we have works, and the only folks who have to think in metric are scientists, some engineers, and the military (we use metric for distances, because it makes communication with our allies easier)….

    I mean, what is the benefit of spending money to convert public signage to metric? Does it actually improve anything?

    No…

    So leave it be….

  • acat

    We do not have a precise language *on purpose*.

    Mew

  • zachv

    Instead of lawyers and career gov’t types. Like I said, 96% of the world uses metric because it’s easier and improves our ability to be able to understand and measure the world around us.

    For example, quick test, which is easier to figure out:

    How many fluid ounces are in a gallon?
    How many milliliters in a liter?

  • Dave_A

    1) Dollar Coin

    It may be more durable, but it is more expensive to manufacture, and it has an added economic cost to transport since it weighs more.

    Plus people HATE coins. Bills are ‘OK’, but most people see change as a nuscience. We’re moving toward a cashless society anyway…

    Plus, there IS a dollar coin – actually there are plenty of different attempts, all of which get REJECTED by the general public, but foisted on us by the post office if you ever actually go there & pay with cash…

    2) Metric System

    For scientific use, it makes sense – where unit conversions are common…

    But for daily use there is no economic benefit to the immense cost of re-labeling public signage. Who cares how many inches are in a mile… And who uses pints, or any of the more isoteric units, anyways – decimalization has made them kind of irrelevant…

    There is simply no benefit to changing the common-usage measurement system – people ‘get’ how big a gallon is (1 milk jug), 20oz is a bottle of coke, 100yds is a football field, 1ft is about the size of an adult male’s foot, and so on…

    It works… And that’s why there’s resistance to change – big costs, no benefit…

    3) Electoral College:

    This is something we absolutely need to keep, for the simple reason that it’s the last thing keeping us a federal republic – our head-of-state is chosen WITH CONSIDERATION OF GEOGRAPHY, rather than pure popular vote…

    The reason for the EC, is to force a President to have BROAD NATIONAL support, rather than just concentrated popular support. The President represents the nation as a unified entity, not ‘the people’ (As originally intended, that was the job of the House)…

    Coincidentally, the winner of the EC usually wins the popular vote – but it is critically important that we keep it around PRECISELY for situations like 2000 – where one candidate (Bush) had much wider geographic support, and the other one had very concentrated support in high-population-density areas….

  • aesthete

    “We need more STEM majors in positions of authority.”

    To which I must respond…

    NO. DON’T DO IT. SAVE YOURSELVES!!!!!

    I work with and tutor engineers or aspiring engineers day-in and day-out. I have a bachelors’ degree in mathematics and economics. Scientists are no different from the rest of the world: they tend to be pretty good at what interests them, but are otherwise ignorant of the wider world and avoid using the logical parts of their brains unless they see some benefit to it. I have heard trained mathematicians who are much more intelligent and learned in their fields than I could ever hope to be spout the most specious, easily disprovable nonsense about politics — I know two profs who are truthers, for example. We don’t need more of a certain profession in positions of power; we need more people who accept and believe our values regarding appropriate size and scope of government. The mandarins don’t get any better just because they know the right way to approach a PDE.

  • Dave_A

    With the exception of miles, gallons, and inches… Most people formally measure very little…

    People think in common-object terms… 1 milk jug, 2 football fields…

    The metric system is not in any way ‘natural’ to us, because the above ‘references’ are in Imperial…

    What object people use every day as a container of liquids, is 1L?

    Nothing… A gallon? Milk jug or gas can…

    Your examples, OTOH, don’t mean anything… Who cares how many fluid-ounces are in a gallon, vs the ability to sub-divide 1L into 1000ML? We use decimal gallons. Same thing for yards in a mile… Decimal miles.

    In general, most common-usage measurements DO NOT NEED to be converted to other units… Who cares how many 20oz soda bottles are needed to hold 1gal of soda?

    There’s no need for 50 different sub-units in the digital era, so the old ‘small’ imperial units just go away, for the most part… And there’s no point to the infinite number of metric units, a left-over from the pre-digital era where you actually needed small units.

    That’s the problem with approaching every-day life as if it’s a scientific problem.

    A scientist’s approach is detailed an meticulous.

    An every-day American’s life does NOT require that level of precision, and imposing scientific precision results in huge costs for no benefit.

    As long as you can tell which box of crackers has more crackers in it, how much fuel you just put in your car, and how far you have left to drive before you need to exit the freeway… You’re good…

    And imperial does all of these things just fine – especially now that we’re using decimal-imperial over the old fractional microunit system….

  • barleycorn

    sheesh.

  • Dave_A

    It allows people to approximate measurements based on readily available physical objects.

    To contrast, the only metric measurement that does this, is the meter (Derived from a fraction of the earth’s circumference), which by pure coincidence happens to be close to the yard (derived from a marching stride)….

    Now, for precise scientific measurements, by all means use metric. It makes sense..

    However, that sort of precision is tedious & un-needed in every-day life… It’s much easier to use units that people can relate to every-day objects, and thus conceptualize ‘how big is a (whatever)’

    Metric ignores this because it’s a system designed for lab use – you’re not supposed to equivocate, you’re supposed to get out a device and measure.

    Now, it is true that people could re-learn object-references to assorted strange metric units…

    But what would the benefit be? We’d be able to understand how much more Europeans pay for gasoline? Not something worth the billions of dollars that would have to be spent to metric-ize the USA…

    The current system works – people who need to know metric, learn metric… The rest of us use what makes sense…

  • acat

    it’s kind of ingenious…. because it takes a sort of genius or a lot of hard work to memorize our system .. and that’s a Good Thing for young skulls full of mush to do.

    Mew

    p.s. you left off the dewey decimal system

  • Tbone

    if you want to count on your fingers and leave us alone. Be glad that is no longer ingrained in our heads to just hit annoying twerps with a club.

  • Dave_A

    The most obvious being the inordinate focus on detail and precision…

    A society run by technical/scientific people would be so hellishly micro-manged, bureaucratic & orderly… It would be nuts (or be Germany, but…)…

    I’m an IT guy myself, and one of the greatest disconnects between my world and ‘normal world’ is the level of detail-focus folks ‘like me’ have – noticing things (like the CPU speed of a given cell phone) that most people just gloss over…

    Put techs in power, and that sort of obsessive attention to detail will be stuffed into every aspect of life…

    Not good…

  • zachv

    The institutional knowledge of Congress is pretty lacking. Instead of having medical and STEM professionals, our governing structure pretty much has to rely on testimonies and the advice of subordinates to improve the quality of policies.

    In every other practice of governance – organizational, project-based, etc. – we work in cross-functional teams of financial, accounting, H/R, engineering, managerial because it provides a better and more well-rounded approach to solving problems. Why, then, should the administration of our country be different?

  • aesthete

    Context-dependent functionality is preferable to abstract precise methodologies the vast majority of the time, cue discussion about inductive and deductive logic, etc. In most contexts, people don’t need to convert units nearly as much as they need to be able to roughly approximate them using their personal experience.

  • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

    in his rebuttal of Lincoln Stein’s proposition that “The question of the existence of God is
    a factual question, and should be answered in the same way as any other factual questions”:

    The assumption that all existence claims* are questions about matters of fact, the assumption that all of these are answered in the very same way is not only over simplified and misleading, it is simply mistaken. The existence, factuality or reality of different kinds of things is not established or disconfirmed in the same way in every case.

    We might ask , “Is there a box of crackers** in the pantry?” And we know how we would go about answering that question. But that is a far, far cry from the way we go about answering questions determining the reality of say, barometric pressure, quasars, gravitational attraction, elasticity, radio activity, natural laws, names, grammar, numbers, the university itself that you’re now at, past events, categories, future contingencies, laws of thought, political obligations, individual identity over time, causation, memories, dreams, or even love or beauty. In such cases, one does not do anything like walk to the pantry and look inside for the crackers. There are thousands of existence or factual questions, and they are not at all answered in the same way in each case.

    Just think of the differences in argumentation and the types of evidences used by biologists, grammarians, physicists, mathematicians, lawyers, magicians, mechanics, merchants, and artists. It should be obvious from this that the types of evidence one looks for in existence or factual claims will be determined by the field of discussion and especially by the metaphysical nature of the entity mentioned in the claim under question.

    * Substituting “measurement requirements” for “existence claims” throughout captures your excellent point.
    ** Tell me you weren’t consciously thinking of this!

  • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

    There a whole lot more of that being used all around you than even metric. Imagine a GDP untrammeled by the completely unnecessary wear-and-tear on CPUs devoted to all of that icky decimal-dependent conversion!

  • APA Guy

    Of course, I’m one of three people in the “Dollar Coin of the Month” club (I’m the Treasurer :) )

  • texashistorian

    in the 1970s, there was a big push on in the California public schools to convert us all to the metric system. We had to learn all of it, and I have to admit I found it easy to use. It’s beauty lies in its simplicity. That said, I have not found my quality of life to be one bit diminished for having to use Imperial measurements. as avgjo pointed out, one system is as good as another if the units are consistent.

    Quite honestly congress has a hell of a lot better things to do right now than dink around with weights and measures.

  • Viet71

    Really. Think about high school football fields being 100 meters long. High school basketball free throw lines being 15 meters from the basket. Forget about the sub-four-minute mile.

    And housewives trying to decide whether tomorrow’s high temperature of 30 degrees celsius will be hot or cold.

    This argument was raging (sarcastically mostly) when I was in high school 1959-63.

    You’re whistling into the wind; but the argument is always fun.

  • zachv

    It needs to be changed out for a system of measurement that’s coherent.

  • Bill S

    Sorry, can’t do that. If you’re not a conservative (which your posts here repeatedly indicate), then you might as well just admit it and move along to somewhere that shares your bizarro ideology. Actual conservatives just point and laugh when you attempt to move the conservative goalposts as you do time and time again.

  • http://stevemaley.com Steve Maley

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    that it is coercive. He want’s the government to mandate what everyone does.

    As for the electoral college. It is one of the only things, along with the Senate, that stops the heavy urban areas from dominating the entire nation.

  • zachv

    British English is a bit more pervasive than American on the international scale in my experience. I hated it at first, but it’s taken over my vocab especially given that my closest friend is Australian. I’ll never use an ‘s’ instead of a ‘z’ though. There are just some lines that do not need to be crossed.

    1. It’s still an unnecessary layer of confusion. The fact that it’s caused planes to crash or the NASA Mars explorer to crash land is outright silly.
    3. I know – most of that can be blamed on the gov’t though. Susan Bs and Ikes were terrible coinage, but that shouldn’t mean we can’t (or won’t in the future) make coins out of our lower denomination notes. At some point inflation will have made simply it downright unfeasible to continue printing $1 and $5 notes.
    5. I don’t believe the EC college has lived up to its goal of protecting the states, which is why I included it in the diary. When was the last time a President paid attention to any small 3 vote state? Certainly not in my lifetime.

    I believe the Senate is a different circumstance, because it’s already been democratized from the original method of electing Senators. If in the future the US drastically urbanizes and we start seeing mega cities vs unpopulated states instead of the 20/80 split we see now, that might be a different situation.

  • http://stevemaley.com Steve Maley

    Maths joke.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Psst: in the real world people don’t go around making arbitrary conversions of unit types.

    One unit is as good as another. AS GOOD AS ANOTHER.

  • acat

    But can you count to 32 on one paw?

    Mew

  • JSobieski

    and #4 is offensive to conservative politics.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Try to challenge my science and engineering background. I BEG YOU.

  • zachv

    I’m a numismatist that’s wondered into collecting notes as well. I could tell you more our currency and history than 99.9% of the country’s population.

    1) A single coin that costs 18c to manufacture replaces 17 dollar bills over its life time which each cost 8c to print:

    17 * 8 = $1.36 – $0.18 = $1.18 saved per dollar coin made, there’s 10 billion one dollar notes in circulation which would lead to a potential maximum of $10.18 billion dollars in cost savings.

    In the only attempt by government in probably the history of government, we’re actually opposing it? Conservatives opposing the dollar coin is one of the most ironic things I have yet to find in politics.

    2) Err … I’m guessing you don’t cook. Someone else takes care of that all for you?

    Having a standard system of measurement is a fundamental foundation of society because it allows us to communicate. That’s why every other country on this planet except for us and Libera has converted to metric and gotten rid of its customary units.

    It’s also why English is considered the “common language” in Europe, or why we’re ending US Generally Accepted Accounting Principles in favor of international IFRS accounting. We first and foremost need to understand each other by “speaking” the same languages. Language, measurements, accounting, technology, etc.

    If we don’t convert, we’ll be harmed in the long run. For example – the US is no longer allowed to trade to trade with our EU allies if we don’t use metric. Our good have a fine imposed upon them if we label them with our units.

  • zachv

    Dire quote: “Section 8

  • lineholder

    After working 18 years in manufacturing, with ISO, this much I do know for a fact.

    Internally, if we want to use another system, any other system, that’s our business, zachv.

    And Neil is right…you don’t arbitrarily alter any system of measurement just for the heck of it. Whatever system is used has to be used consistently.

  • acat

    In short, a false argument because the manufacturer can simply choose – as most have done – to dual-label, or can choose to not sell into Europe.

    Mew

    *

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    I haven’t ever seen a contract or lease cross my desk that says otherwise. Not in almost 30 years of paralegal work.

    FWIW, I agree with the other commenters here, and I’m not about to convert my cookbooks or the recipes handed down for generations.

  • Dave_A

    First off, here are the costs you’re ignoring with the dollar coins:

    1) They cost many, many times more to ship from place to place. The most extreme example of this is US installations overseas, which for cost reasons do not stock ANY US coinage, and issue paper discs (‘pogs’) as change.

    Increasing metal coinage imposes a cost on the entire economy to move that crap around from place to place. Metal is heavy, paper is not.

    2) People have an aversion to using coins of any kind… This is the biggest sticking point of all – people HATE getting change, and thus would refuse to USE a dollar coin. This is exhibited by the abject failure of every attempt to introduce them….

    Metric (again):

    1) Actually I do cook things that require measurement occasionally, but the measurements are all in cooking-specific units that are separate from daily-use units (Cups, tablespoons, teaspoons, etc)… Changing all of these to ml wouldn’t make it any easier or harder to do that sort of exceedingly simple and basic measuring. The only thing it would make easier, would be the use of foreign recopies (which I don’t do) – but if you need to do that you can always buy metric measures….

    2) The overwhelming majority of Americans don’t communicate internationally, except maybe with Canadians and Mexicans – and by proximity most of them are familiar with US measures…

    There is no communications barrier imposed by measuring gasoline in gallons, or distances in miles here in the states…

    Since I’ve been in the Army, I *can* communicate in metric if I have to (for exactly the reasons you cited) but I look at the way life is for folks who will never have to give ranges & coordinates to British or Polish gunners & pilots (for example)… And there is no benefit to moving to metric.

    What you continue to miss, is that most Americans have no use for the capabilities you are promoting. They don’t communicate internationally… They don’t use precise measures in daily life… All they need to know, is how far it is to the next city (Conveniently, miles and the 55-65mph speed limit used in most of the country make this an easy computation – it’s about as many minutes as miles), how much they weigh, or how much gasoline they just bought…

    Our system is set up to make all of these things fairly naturally understandable.

    The metric system is set up for scientific use, and thus pays no attention to ease of common-reference, because in science you’re supposed to measure and verify precisely, not guess…

    As an example:

    At 97km/h, how many minutes does it take to go 35.4 km?

    How long does it take to go 24 miles at 60mph?

    Which one can you solve without thinking? Which one requires working math?

    Everything that makes metric great for the sciences, makes it abhorrant for daily life….

  • acat

    Supposed to say Reg Penna Dept Agr

    Mew

  • zachv

    Like I said in the beginning of my post, people just do not like ‘change’ which really makes it an enigma as to why they were stupid enough to vote for Obama.

    And I’ll post this again – Setting the System of Measurement is an enumerated power of the US Constitution. Section 8. That I want a coherent measuring system makes me just as Communist as it makes Thomas Jefferson. :/

    Unfortunately, this debate will rage on and on until it’s finally won by the metric system. We’re going to get dragged into it whether we like it or not.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    You wrote a Diary that got over 120 posts in one afternoon.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    between a power granted, and a power used. The constitution also grants the power to tax, but that does not mean that a tax of 99% on all income would not be coercive.

    Most people are happy with things the way they are, but you want to use the power of the state to change them without any real demonstrable advantage. That is coercion.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    if it makes them demonstrably better off. But are loath to change for change’s sake. Or because someone has a bug up their butt.

  • lineholder

    Businesses that are required to utilize metric dimensions are already doing it. And whether you realize it or not, students do learn how to do conversions between the two systems.

    But what you’re talking about is totally over-riding a system that has been in place for an extended period of time when it isn’t absolutely necessary to do so.

    And especially not right now. Do YOU want to pay the increases in taxes that would be required to alter every document, every textbook, every sign, everything that pertains to anything that provides reference to the current standard of measurement?

  • acat

    I do not remember this, zachv.

    Ah. I see.

    You’re lumping “change” together.

    People like change that they see the value in.
    People do not like (and resist) change that they do not see a value in.

    So.

    As people have been resisting a change-over to metric since the Carter Administration tried to mandate dual highway signage, my conclusion is the metric system proponents have done a piss poor job of convincing people of its’ value.

    I’ll note nobody complains about Ramune’s 6.76oz bottles….

    Mew

  • Viet71

    Why do engineers in the U.S. feel comfortable with units of measurement in feet, pounds, degrees fahrenheit, etc., in their personal lives?

    Answer: Because engineers know how to convert one system of measurement to another. It’s simple math. (I know — I was trained as an electrical engineer before going to law school.)

    There’s nothing wrong with measuring in feet, pounds, or degrees fahrenheit.

    I agree that most people resist change; I’m a living, breathing example. But I’ll bend to a solid argument. I don’t think you’ve made a solid argument as to why America should adopt the metric system whole hog. Particularly given that there’s no mathematical reason to do so.

  • acat

    Google’s instant convert tool.

    Mew

  • lapert

    Actually, I think you have it backwards. Currently, the government is being coercive by not allowing consumer product labels to be metric only (unless the FPLA has been amended in the last couple of years – last I had to care about the issue was in 2010 and I believe the efforts to amend the law at the time failed).

    My guess is when/if they amend that law you will see a steady but relatively quick change in consumer goods to metric-only.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    I was not aware of such a law and in general would be against anything that distorted natural markets. However, that is different than what Zachv is advocating. He stated flatly that Imperial measurements were bad, stupid, wrong, etc and wanted to get rid of them.

  • lineholder

    More or less, he wants to persuade Conservatives that we should “evolve”.

    The words “progressive” and “Forward” come to mind when I hear those kinds of sentiments being expressed.

    It rubs me the wrong way, I guess. As if we shouldn’t have minds of our own and question what we are progressing towards, what the outcomes should be, neither hold ourselves accountable on any level whatsoever for those outcomes…

    It implies that we should just be “sheeples”. That’s where it bugs me.

  • acat

    those who use it must have at least a minimum competence at math.

    Look, if you want to teach both systems in the classroom, that’s entirely cool with me. If other nations want to mandate that we label exports in “their” systems’ values, that’s also fine.

    Where I have a problem is changing the system *because people are stupid*.

    Mew

  • lapert

    Despite the delays in convergence it is ultimately inevitable that US GAAP will go away. If you haven’t seen anything discussing this come across your desk in the last five years than you don’t really follow accounting. The lease accounting convergence project (and the end of operating leases) in particular will have its second exposure draft released in the next few months.

  • zachv

    Though I didn’t major in accounting, so that probably was why we weren’t drilled so much on both IFRS and US GAAP.

  • acat

    and STEM professionals and medical practitioners had a better understanding of what their congresscritters and statehouse reps get up to “on their behalf” …

    Mew

  • zachv

    #1 would produce some costs, yes, but #2 and #3 are rather cost-less. Pennies can be axed without any additional cost, and we have the added benefit of having had over-produced dollars coins. There’s billions of them sitting unused in Mint vaults, so switching over would be rather easy.

    #5 – I agree as well, but I’d probably have been called un-American, a Communist and eventually tarred and feathered if I suggested we get rid of the first past the post voting.

  • lapert

    Sorry, should have spelled out the acronym..

  • tnguy

    It will be interesting to see how some of the more controversial aspects of IFRS adoption are handled.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    The union schools clearly stink in Wisconsin. Good thing Walker’s trying to fix that.

  • acat

    I rather liked the Susan B. Looked like a quarter, but wasn’t actually round. Kind of nifty. The Ike is too big for daily use… seems more designed to put in kids’ stockings than anything else.

    The real problem preventing adoption of dollar coins is chicken-egg.. and all face being mooted by technology anyway.

    No vending machine owner (who, unlike most transit systems, can’t pass the expense on to the general public but who process about as much ca$h…) wants to change out all the coin mechanisms – not to mention cash register drawers – for ones that will handle dollar coins until there’s demand … and since we’ve had 4 dollar coins in recent history, there’s not enough of ‘em out there to cause demand.

    If the Fed wanted this to move forward, there’s a dead simple and *conservative* way to go about it. Turbo Tax Timmie starts charging a “disposal fee” to banks for replacing worn out paper dollars… but there’s no fee if the replacement is taken in dollar coins.

    This will create the supply, leading to the demand, leading to acceptance in short order.

    Mew

  • zachv

    I believe there’s an appropriate balance between “evolve” and questioning where we are progressing and what outcomes will be. Being conservative I think the balance certainly lies in the realm of the latter, but at the same time I’m also a very big-picture and abstract thinker.

    When I look at the world, we’re moving towards a competitive global environment where interaction with foreign companies, individuals and governments is day to day normalcy. If you visit sites like Reddit, you’d know that has already happened. Or I could even tell you that I text friends of mine in Germany, France and Australia on a daily basis and that’s not considered abnormal.

    So on a weekly basis I’m confronted with the fact that we do not have the same system of measurement as the other 95% of the world. And I literally cannot think of a way as to how we will continue to reconcile that difference as we become more integrated and more connected.

  • lineholder

    You’re totally missing a specific point here…we don’t have to completely and totally give up our measurement system for the sake of conforming to theirs.
    We can keep both systems in place. We’ve been doing it for years.

    We do not have to “integrate”. Part of the reason that our nation has succeeded to the extent that it has is because we’re a society a people who choose to find our own way of doing things…that increases ingenuity and creativity, zachv

    Given the economic scenario we’re facing now, we’d be better off to keep those elements of that “spirit of independence” alive and well than we would be to simply follow blindly along behind the lead of other countries…especially European countries.

  • acat

    That said, *for companies that wish to export*, and given the existence of easy calculation tools, there is a small (not null, but .. small) cost.

    There is no cost for Americans in buying our Ramune in 6.76oz bottles, nor for a German in buying IBC Root Beer in a .35484 liter bottle, eh?

    Look, this *is* changing. Not, perhaps, as fast as you would like, but … well, that’s been the complaint of youth since they were invented.

    Mew

  • acat

    the next likely replacement for vending machines is a QR Code reader or similar that’ll pull data off a smart phone. No need for cash at all.

    Mew

  • zachv

    Completely.

  • gekster

    they don’t adopt our systems.
    Ours have worked better in the couple of hundred years we have had them then thiers have in the same if not longer period of time.

  • lineholder

    There is a specific mindset you are expressing, zachv, that Conservatives in general aren’t going to respond positively to. Why? Because you’re conveying and implying that if we don’t integrate, if we don’t conform, then the outcomes will be predetermined, and there will be dire consequences of it (such as in the area of global trade) and because of this, we should abandon things that have served us well for many years.

    Problem is that it isn’t necessarily true, zachv. For the people of this country, finding our own way to succeed in things has served us well, and many other economies across the globe along with ourselves, for a long time.

    The people of this nation are very much so capable of the creativity and ingenuity, spirit of determination and perseverance, that it takes to succeed.

    We don’t have to “tow the line” and “integrate”.

  • aesthete

    I will agree with you on the penny, but there are non-monetary costs associated with using the dollar coin.

    FWIW, first past the vote is less fundamentally and uniquely American than the electoral college.

  • barleycorn

    I know I looked around for a club after I read this diary.

  • zachv

    I assumed that we had always used first past the post voting in America. When I speak to international people, they generally don’t have a concept of it.

    That could also possibly be a sign that I interact with only people who come from parliamentary republics though.

  • checkmate2012

    on this diary. That speaks volumes, gallons or liters, take your pick :)

  • gekster

    tntntntnt

  • checkmate2012

    wake me up when it’s over and we can talk politics…so much going worth discussing with all the brain power here at RS we might even solve something. Thx for the 5!

  • gekster

    for the gallon/liter thing.

  • zachv

    Whoever brought up the “compartmentalize” argument had a very good argument. I certainly see how it reduces incentive to commit nation-wide vote fraud, but I’m not sold if that necessarily is a weighty argument.

    As it stands, the EC focuses the vote to just a few swing states. In 2000 for example the election was almost swung to Gore and there was probably untold number of fraudulent votes cast for Gore. One state, a few hundred fraudulent votes =s the incredibly easy ability to swing the national election.

    So yeah, a national vote would lessen the incentive to commit nation-wide vote fraud, but it would have the benefit of lessening the incentive to commit vote fraud in the few states where only a couple hundred of sleazy votes could swing the election.

    I’m actually quite torn on the argument.

  • aesthete

    of almost all “democracies”; neither system is particularly democratic or efficient. FPTP features prominently in the UK, but originated and is used in many non-Anglo countries. Party list is most other democracies. Both systems work to centralize power and render votes insignificant; the former by how easy it is to gerrymander and to tend towards two large, “broad based” parties with little voter support, and the latter by nationalizing elections (rendering individual votes statistically insignificant), and by effectively locking out emergent parties or voter movements through the empowering of party, rather than voter, as the central political decision-making unit.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    so that representatives were chosen on a proportional basis in each state? In other words you could have a large number of parties and each would have to have at least one candidate in each district.

    Then if a smaller party got let us say 10% of the vote in a state with 30 representatives then their candidate would win in at least three districts (chosen by which ones had the highest vote count for that party)

    This would allow third parties some ability to get elected.

  • civil truth

    The major Democratic machine large-city strongholds (NYC, Chicago, LA, Boston) are in solidly blue states, so running up the numbers (as I mentioned below) won’t swing anything. On the other hand, the ability to dump run-up numbers into a national popular count give great incentive to fraud, both in registrations and then in the vote.

    The other thing a national popular vote will do is to proliferate lawsuits in case of a very close election. Think of multiplying Florida 2000 challenges by 20.

    Just two problems with popular Presidential elections. I haven’t mentioned the biggest problem either.

  • bogornes

    The best way to reduce fraud is to not have elections! Your argument is predicated on the reality that voting has become utterly meaningless in over 40 states (with the concomitant diversion of political resources and political focus to a handful of states). Elections are already legitimately compartmentalized at the precinct/district/county/state level. Rendering votes meaningless in 80% of states is not the only way to reduce fraud, is it?

  • aesthete

    that remove the local connection of a representative to a specific body of people — it removes accountability. It doesn’t help that the most popular proportional systems require formalized empowerment and privileges for established parties.

    Some proportional systems are better than what we currently have, but I think that we can create strong voting systems which allow third parties, which don’t remove that local connection and which don’t subordinate voter choice to party organization.

  • aesthete
  • civil truth

    Besides eliminating the need for primaries, it also removes the “throwing away one’s vote” disincentive to voting for a non-R/non-D.

  • aesthete

    which I think is pretty good, for that and other reasons.

  • Dave_A

    Proportional voting removes the choice of who *governs* from the people and places it in the hands of the minority parties. It is the least representative and most oligarchic voting system possible.

    Why? Because under proportional voting, you have NO IDEA what your vote will result in – that’s decided in ‘smoke filled rooms’ after the election, when the various multiple-party leaderships hash out a ruling coalition. See Italy, Israel, Spain and Greece for examples of why more than 2 governing parties is BAD.

    Alternative – aka ‘Instant Runoff’ voting, OTOH, is a very, very good idea – it ensures that the party most people want governs, and eliminates ‘spoiler parties’ like the Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, and Ross Perot movements…

    Instant runoff is the *most representative* because it (A) enables a popular emergent movement to pick up votes without fear of ‘voting for the other side’ by not supporting the establishment, BUT (B) prevents small minorities from disrupting close elections & gaining undue influence over major parties with threats to act as a spoiler.

    (P.S. This is what I meant to post instead of the joke about the Talis and their artillery-resistant mud huts)

  • norris

    Back in the seventies there was a big push for metric to allow american machines to be sold over seas. The reality was cheap imports destroyed the market for American machine tools. The cost to change tools was several thousand for mechanics ,and much more for manufactures . Now we have a mix of both ,so we need two sets of tools. Business is gone ,nothing is better all we got was unintended consequences .

  • Dave_A

    Just ask the Taliban about their preference for Qualats over wooden houses…

    ;)

    (Hell, even war can be humorous, for some of us)

  • Dave_A

    And was supposed to be a reply to Barleycorn’s mud-hut comment…

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    in which there is only proportional voting. What I was speaking about would be to merge partial proportional-ism in the House, but leave intact the way we chose the Senate and the President.

    This way you get a system in which minority parties can have some say. This you describe as depriving people of their representation. But I can counter that our present two party system really does that because it causes both parties to cater to their extremes and after election have a mad rush to seize the middle of the road.

  • aesthete

    and you accurately describe the reasons that I loathe party list parliamentary-style democracy. Daniel Hannan (a British politician) has a pretty good argument that our Presidential system explains the vast differences between our government and the Euro model of large welfare states.

    Proportional voting does not need to involve such a dynamic (though it often does because of how complicated it is to arbitrate such a system otherwise). My preference so far is some form of ranked voting, like the alternative vote (instant runoff). I also like the alternative vote plus (which fixes some of the problems that AV has with proportionality).

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    That every attempt to introduce a dollar coin has failed miserably. But there is always an endless cadre of high thinkers who want to try and force something unwanted and unnecessary upon the public.

    (I am thinking Mayor Bloomberg here)

  • Dave_A

    Thus we need to keep the parlimentary ideas out of our system, because once they get in, they will spread.

    My concern with proportional rep – even in one house – is that you have no idea what you’re actually voting for.

    Immagine an election where the Ronulans got 10% of the seats in the House. The Democrats got 42%, and the GOP got 48%…

    Do we get a Democratic-lead coalition, or a Republican-lead one? Do Paul’s acolytes side with the party of smaller budgets, free trade, and free markets – or of legal weed, bank-bashing, and no more war?

    A 2-party system presents you with 2 known-quantity choices – if you vote for the Republicans you get one thing… If you vote for the Dems you get another. There is no chance that voting for (A) will in the end get you (B) instead, because (B) and (C) made a deal.

    The European way is a method of preserving oligarchic ‘your lordship knows best’ government, by insulating the politicians from their voters with an array of party deal-making that keeps the status quo in place forever.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    they can go the other way as well. If a coalition does anything that upsets a majority of people they will feel the heat at the ballot box, So it is not as likely that anything wild and crazy is done.

    However, it would mean that some people who currently have no representation would get some.

    During the last fifty years there really hasn’t been any representation for the rather sizable constituency who wants to reduce the size of government. Republicans have given lip service but that is all.

    Of course I know this is just a pipe dream, but I am trying to find some way, any way that small government advocates can really be heard.

  • aesthete

    I’ll also note that you are referring to a “closed list” form of parliamentary democracy: where the voters have no input on how the list is organized and who gets on it. In “open list” parliaments, voters vote from among all the candidates put on the list by each party, and the seats that the party wins are filled from the most voted for list member downwards. Not as good as voting for a member yourself, but better than closed list, for sure.

  • aesthete

    I am a bad person :)

  • Dave_A

    I thought it was funny too…

    Because I’ve seen the ‘benefits’ those a-holes incur from their preference for that mode of mud-hut (really, mud castle) construction…

    The title was originally ‘Mud Huts are pretty good, if you need your house to withstand 105mm fire from an AC-130′…..

  • Dave_A

    I wasn’t referring to the person, when I said ‘you have no idea what you’re voting for’….

    I was referring to which party controls the chamber…

    The most important thing in legislative our elections, is who sits in the leadership positions…

    Proportional representation, no matter how it is accomplished, brings into question which party will have control (by enabling more than 2 to be represented on a routine and normal basis)….

    An election where the Democrats lose to the GOP by 3 points, but Paulbots take 10%, is an example… You have NO idea which party the loons will form a coalition with… And no way to control this with your vote…

    There is no way to solve that, except to design a strongly-implicit 2-party system. Like ours…

  • checkmate2012

    Congrats ZachV for having the most comments in 24 hours without a recco!!!!! Well done. Now can we move on?

  • Dave_A

    Let’s take a bunch of bored hyper-active kids, and make them hungry, bored hyperactive kids because we’ve regulated their diet so heavily they can’t stand the taste of school-approved food (it’s so bad in some states/municipalities, that the school dictates what parents can send in a brown-bag)…

    The solution to overweight kids isn’t food-nazisim, it’s more exercise.

  • Dave_A

    And dillute the small-government faction even more…

    Right now, small-government conservatism flips between 1st and 2nd chair – the ‘flipping’ is what holds back the agenda (since the hold-the-status-quo folks are in the lead when the small-government faction is not)….

    However, if you go proportional, you unleash more seats for extreme elements from both sides – Paul followers, Birchers, Greens (on the Dem side), etc…

    Personally, I think that the biggest obstacle small-government policies face, is that we accept some truly freakish ideologies into the ‘tent’ because they support some small-government policies.

    Bachmann, Paul, and so on don’t help our cause – they hurt us by making ‘small government’ seem like an extremist position…

    But they are tolerated and even given committee seats…

    We need to stick a giant ‘NOT WITH US’ on these folks, or they will continue to drag us down….