Who would you vote for?

[smileyeagle1021]

I won't name names or parties, I'll just do candidate A and candidate B (for now)

Candidate A
College educated, has what most would consider the nearly perfect family, all his children are doing well in school. His platform includes making k-12 curriculem more rigorous (require an additional year of math and science as well as higher scores required on proficiency tests), increase funding to education to assist students in achieving those higher standards. He also will ease up on liquor restrictions, thus allowing more restaurants and clubs to open (many of which have shown interest in opening locations in Utah despite the economic downtown and have been turned away because they serve alcohol), increasing the tax base and providing jobs. He supports ethics reform legislation which will make redistricting the job of a non-partisan (well, non elected group made up of representatives of all parties) committee who will have less motive to redistrict to suit their reelection (because they aren't elected). He also supports campaign finance reform. During his previous service in government he has always had a balanced budget, has had minimal scandal, and has shown a great deal of effort at making bipartison compromise.

Candidate B
Dropped out early on in college. His children have criminal records, one is currently under investigation. He opposes stronger academic standards and is pushing for more time for elective courses. He will not increase funding to education, but will increase the roads budget. He opposes any changes to the liquor code (unless it is to make it more restrictive) despite the evidence that it is harming our economy. He opposes any form of ethics reform and opposes campaign finance reform. He has had minimal previous service in government, but during that time he has had several ethics violations, including evidence coming to light that he may have accepted a bribe. The budget has been balanced, but he has no idea where the money is going to (at least not that he will publicly admit... please refer to the mentioned ethics violations). During his breif tenure he has done nothing to encourage bipartisanship.

Which candidate would you vote for?

And which one do you think has the support of nearly 70% of Utahns according to the polls?
For an added bonus, guess the party affiliations and religious affiliations of both candidates and it may explain why so many support or oppose who they support/oppose.

I hate this state and it's blind obedience to party/church.

[Hobbs]

I assume that the latter candidate is the one Utahns support.

Oh, and is that how you refer to someone who is from Utah?

[Sage Blackthorn]

For years and years, I've listened to candidates make promises to the people during their campaign. Outlining what they'd do and what they'd fix, only to break every promise they ever made on their campaign once they are safely in office, and they excuse themselves by saying things like "it's just not feasable at this time" or "the economic factors aren't coming together to support this proposition."

"Anyone capable of getting elected to public office probably doesn't deserve the job in the first place."
---My Grandfather

[MadMike]

For years and years, I've listened to candidates make promises to the people during their campaign. Outlining what they'd do and what they'd fix, only to break every promise they ever made on their campaign once they are safely in office, and they excuse themselves by saying things like "it's just not feasable at this time" or "the economic factors aren't coming together to support this proposition."

This is why I've been saying for years that it should be easier to fire politicians. In any other job, if you get hired by lying about your abilities, you get fired when they find out. So why should politics be any different?

I'm a programmer, and I got hired because I claimed to know programming. If they would have hired me based on that claim, and then it turned out I didn't know programming at all, I can guarantee they wouldn't wait four years to "consider" replacing me.

[Sage Blackthorn]

This is why I've been saying for years that it should be easier to fire politicians. In any other job, if you get hired by lying about your abilities, you get fired when they find out. So why should politics be any different?

I'm a programmer, and I got hired because I claimed to know programming. If they would have hired me based on that claim, and then it turned out I didn't know programming at all, I can guarantee they wouldn't wait four years to "consider" replacing me.

I always liked how Joseph M. Marshall III describes how leaders are chosen in traditional Lakota society. People who show a history of making good decisions, of putting the welfare of the tribe ahead of their own, are approached and asked to lead on behalf of the people. Many often refused the burden. Some didn't get much of a choice, as people started to flock to them, pitching their lodges next to the person whom they felt was a good leader. And they'd continue to do so for as long as that person continued being a good leader. When they stopped acting like a leader, it was quite common for people to move thier lodges away from them in the middle of the night. A leader might goto sleep surrounded by 150 families and wake up alone. That's a very clear cut sign of public disapproval, don't you think?

The other part of the system that made it work was that you didn't HAVE to do what anyone said. "No man can tell another what to do" is a strong sentiment among traditional Lakota. You only go along with the leader if you agree with them. And even being a leader had a different connotation. They were good administrators and problem solvers. They often consulted with the eldest members of the tribe, what we've come to know as "the Council of Elders", who between them all possessed hudreds of years of life experience. And even they did not issue rules and edicts, but suggestions and advice to taken or left as you saw fit. But it was a very foolish person who would fail to consider the advice of their elders, and often it was disregarding that advice that would leave them realizing how very foolish there were.

This is one reason that public speaking and debate was so admired among the Lakota. Good leaders had to convince their people as to the best course of action.

[smileyeagle1021]

I assume that the latter candidate is the one Utahns support.

Oh, and is that how you refer to someone who is from Utah?

Yup the latter is the one being supported.
Now, I'm in no way included to believe that the first guy would be able to do all he says he is going to do, but clearly he would be the better alternative.
The problem is that he is a democrat and a Catholic, two things that many Utahns (apparently a majority) just can't bear to see in office.

[Sage Blackthorn]

Yup the latter is the one being supported.
Now, I'm in no way included to believe that the first guy would be able to do all he says he is going to do, but clearly he would be the better alternative.
The problem is that he is a democrat and a Catholic, two things that many Utahns (apparently a majority) just can't bear to see in office.

Another quote that I've always been fond of is by Jerry Garcia of the Grateful Dead when he responded to someone that said if he didn't vote, he had no right to complain...

"Being forced to choose between the lesser of two evils is still being forced to choose an evil, and that is plenty to complain about."

Personally, I've come to realize that all voting ballots need an option for "None Of The Above". Perhaps if a significant number of voters could declare that none of the candidates were acceptable to them, then new candidates could be presented until someone was found worthy of the job.

Recently found something that might help over on TED.com, dunno just how relevant it might be to an election:

Four ways To Simplify A Broken Legal System

<edit> I think I found a few points that would apply to elections, again going back to what I mentioned about choosing leaders we know: Trust. And my favorite point of the talk: You can't run a society based on the lowest common denominator.

[Bronzebow]

If there's anything I've learned about politics, it's that nothing is really as simple as a bullet point list. Personally, I would lean towards the second candidate because the description just sounds like too much of a smear campaign. The first candidate sounds too good to be true, so he probably is.

I don't know how fair these descriptions truly are without context. A few points:

-College. Sure, it's a good thing usually to have under your belt, but I don't think it's all that important in defining one's abilities. Maybe candidate one is a dummy who was carried through bird courses on some sports scholarship. Maybe candidate two is an insanely intelligent guy who couldn't afford college because his family was poor and he had to care for his sick mother.

-Kids. I don't think this is fair at all. For one thing, kids only go so far in determining a person's ability. You can do your best as you raise them, but sometimes your kids fall into the wrong crowd or simply mess up in the wrong way when they hit college. Maybe candidate one's kids are still in elementary school so they haven't had the chance to screw up. Maybe candidate two's kids learned valuable life lessons about what not to do and move on. Maybe the local LEO's have a bone to pick with the family so they made up some bull charges and screwed up their lives. Implying that someone is a bad person because they or their children have some jail time, to me, seems insanely unfair.

I also think it's generally really sleazy to drag a guy's family through the mud just because he's vying for an elected seat. Vote the guy on what he'll do, not on whether or not his toddler picked up a dirty word at WallyWorld.

-K-12 difficulty. I'm instantly wary of any politician that wants to make laws regarding children more rigid. This just reeks of a "who will think of the children?!" move to me. Oh, candidate one is going to really lay down the law on those kids, we better vote for him! Maybe candidate two thinks that a two point grading scale (anything under 92% is a fail) is too harsh and wants to ease it up a bit. Maybe forcing kids to take yet more redundant math and science means they can't take a history class, or an english class, or an art class, or a music class, and therefore mean they will be more the wise fool: book smart, but lacking in culture and flavor. Context is everything here, and the more rigid structure is not always the best one.

-Alcohol/ethics/finance reforms. If there's anything we need to watch in politics, it's that simple little descriptions of laws aren't always what they seem. Tighter ethics violations may come in the form of letting police monitor and read all mail. The intent being that they can now read political mails and make sure everything's on the level, but the wording allows them to read every letter sent in the state. Including yours. I'd support any politician that votes against the Save the Ethics and Kittens and Rainbows! bill if that bill says to kill anyone who breaks any law. There isn't enough info here to judge this.

-No previous political experience. So what? If anything, that's a good thing. Might as well read, "No previous experience cutting back room deals, and at least for the moment probably isn't bought and paid for by the local big cats."

-Bipartisanship. The bane of our existence. Since we're stuck with these two practically identical parties in power, I prefer when republicrats fight each other. When they work together, it just means that they're agreed on how to screw us on anything ranging from the frivolous to outright violations of power.


The devil is in the details.

[Hobbs]

-K-12 difficulty. I'm instantly wary of any politician that wants to make laws regarding children more rigid. This just reeks of a "who will think of the children?!" move to me. Oh, candidate one is going to really lay down the law on those kids, we better vote for him! Maybe candidate two thinks that a two point grading scale (anything under 92% is a fail) is too harsh and wants to ease it up a bit. Maybe forcing kids to take yet more redundant math and science means they can't take a history class, or an english class, or an art class, or a music class, and therefore mean they will be more the wise fool: book smart, but lacking in culture and flavor. Context is everything here, and the more rigid structure is not always the best one.

I don't think there's anything "redundant" about science and math classes. They're just as important in a well-rounded education as history and English courses. It used to be, in my state, that you could choose 3 years of science for 4 years of math, or vice versa. Elective science classes counted (ie. microbiology, neuro-biology, etc). The system now, or as I remember it, is that you need 4 years of both science and math. I don't see that as "rigid" or being redundant. I think it's rather sad that we put a man on the moon, but nowadays so many countries surpass us in general science and mathematics.

As for me, I took four years of art, four of math and five of science (two in one year) as well as being a student-aide for my chemistry teacher.

[Bronzebow]

I don't think there's anything "redundant" about science and math classes. They're just as important in a well-rounded education as history and English courses. It used to be, in my state, that you could choose 3 years of science for 4 years of math, or vice versa. Elective science classes counted (ie. microbiology, neuro-biology, etc). The system now, or as I remember it, is that you need 4 years of both science and math. I don't see that as "rigid" or being redundant. I think it's rather sad that we put a man on the moon, but nowadays so many countries surpass us in general science and mathematics.

As for me, I took four years of art, four of math and five of science (two in one year) as well as being a student-aide for my chemistry teacher.

That's not what I'm saying.

High school needs to get you to a certain point intended to let you pick up in college. What if that point is already reached with current standards, but some politician somewhere decides that he wants to add more because it sounds good and it'll get him elected?

People would instantly react as you have here, thinking that if someone wants to add more to science and math in high school, then obviously there's a dearth in these fields. And since obviously there's a dearth in these fields, we need to add more! In reality, these students would only be losing out on other needed fields for no important reason.

This going back to my point that the devil is in the details.

[Hobbs]

That's not what I'm saying.

High school needs to get you to a certain point intended to let you pick up in college. What if that point is already reached with current standards, but some politician somewhere decides that he wants to add more because it sounds good and it'll get him elected?

But in a lot of instances, they're not. And it's not just math or science. Look on CS.com at the professors there as they talk about some of the dumb things their students do. I know some people that struggled with Freshman Composition. After four years of English in high school, I expect people to know how to write essays. Yes, once you get into a field you learn different formats, but that's to be expected.

People would instantly react as you have here, thinking that if someone wants to add more to science and math in high school, then obviously there's a dearth in these fields. And since obviously there's a dearth in these fields, we need to add more! In reality, these students would only be losing out on other needed fields for no important reason.

This going back to my point that the devil is in the details.

There is a dearth in these fields. It's statistically proven that the United States has fallen behind in the general knowledge of science and mathematics.

[smileyeagle1021]

Oh, candidate one is going to really lay down the law on those kids, we better vote for him! Maybe candidate two thinks that a two point grading scale (anything under 92% is a fail) is too harsh and wants to ease it up a bit.

If Utah's grading scale is too harsh, then we as a species are doomed. The most popular course at SLCC is Math 0050... that's not even a college level course, that is a remedial math course that teaches low level high school math. Our students are being allowed to progress with practically no standards.

[Sage Blackthorn]

Well, since the current of thread drift has taken us into talking about education.....

I remember not to long ago when the "No Child Left Behind" rules were put into effect. At the time, my mother was working for our local school district and my older sister was a teacher. As a result I got to hear what teachers and school staff thought about this. It's one of the only times I've seen them agree on anything. Kids were sent forward to the next grade whether they'd learned the material or not, which made it harder for their next teacher who had to try and teach them what they should've learned in the previous class. Test scores fell, teachers tossed their hands up in frustration.

As a result, I'm pretty wary about any politician who wants to push an education agenda. In the past, such things have only screwed up the schools. Perhaps it would be better to let the teachers do their jobs without hobbling them with endless Politically Correct rules? I mean it's bad enough that the way most public school work is to teach kids to keep their heads down, don't question authority (even when they are blatantly wrong), remember the information just long enough to pass the test and forget it...... What happened to teaching kids critical thinking? Life goals? Hell, what happened to teaching them basic nutrition and how to balance their friggin' check book?

[crashhelmet]

The problem here is that most voters don't vote for who the best candidate is. They vote for who they're told to vote for. They're blind sheeple following their shepherds.

CH

[Sage Blackthorn]

The problem here is that most voters don't vote for who the best candidate is. They vote for who they're told to vote for. They're blind sheeple following their shepherds.

CH

Hence the break down of the system. Elections are popularity contests, doesn't matter what the candidates experience or qualifications are, it's who can bullshit the best that gets elected.