Civics Education in the US

Discussion in 'Education' started by LafayetteBis, Oct 12, 2018.

  1. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    From the Center for American Progress: The State of Civics Education
    Excerpt:
    No modern nation on earth can claim to be a Real Democracy if Civics Education is not a key element of secondary-schooling. People must know not only the political history of the US, but also how politics runs the country today. I suspect personally that most people get a notion of political activity off the BoobTube (TV).

    That's just not good enough. The notion of Liberty being the foundation-stone of our nation is fine but neither is it good enough. Americans must be taught also that the Electoral College that MANIPULATES THE POPULAR-VOTE before conveying the results to Congress and Gerrymandering are both manipulations of the popular-vote to favor either side of a basically two-party system!

    Both the above election-voting connivances have been in place since 1812 - when the 12th Amendment instituted the Electoral College and a Massachusetts governor (Gerry) carved out voting districts to assure that his party would win them.

    What are a people to do when their democracy has been infected by such complicities?

    Simply not put up with them!
     
  2. Seth Bullock

    Seth Bullock Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Messages:
    13,625
    Likes Received:
    11,934
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    LafayetteBis,

    In our last extended conversation, I showed you how eliminating the EC and eliminating districting for the House would disenfranchise millions and millions of our fellow citizens, and it would turn our national politics into iron-fisted rule by a few large cities.
     
  3. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    For me, you gave an opinion, and I accept none of it.

    I live in the EU, an entity with more than twice the population of the US. There is no such thing as an Electoral College, neither Gerrymandering.

    And, lo and behold, they elect parliaments without the slightest hindrance. Why? How?

    In fact there's a plethora of political parties. So, in the first round everybody gets to vote on the party of their choice. In the second round, however, only the top two parties compete. Either head-of-party will be next Prime Minister. Damn simple.

    Everybody votes. The vote is fair and honest. And the popular-vote decides, in both votes, the outcome. It should be the same in the US. Simple, obvious and fair.

    Lo and behold, the vote-participation record looks like this as shown here (from Pew Research): US Voter Turnout

    Look for the US eleventh from the bottom and the lowest turnout of any developed nation listed ...
     
  4. Seth Bullock

    Seth Bullock Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Messages:
    13,625
    Likes Received:
    11,934
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I gave you facts and figures, which you ignored, to back up my opinion.

    Aren't representatives elected from different regions of an EU country? Or is it a nationwide vote for all the representatives? If it is a nationwide vote, doesn't that mean that all the representatives are elected from the majority party? That's not how it it works, is it? The UK has representatives from both major parties in government. There must be some sort of regional (gerrymandered) voting, not just a national vote.


    So if you have 3 major parties, and the vote is 34%, 33%, and 32% in the first round, the one with 32% is out. If Europeans like it that way, fine for them. But that is not how we want to do things in the U.S.

    It depends on one's definition of "fair". In my earlier discussion with you I showed you examples of states where certain regions of those states were politically different from other regions of the same state. If all of the members of Congress from that state were elected by a statewide vote, with no consideration of regions (districts), then all of the members of Congress from those states would come from only one party, completely politically disenfranchising large numbers of people in the state. That is not fair by U.S. customs, tradition, and practice. If Europeans think that's fair, they can do it that way and call it "fair". But what's "fair" is really just a subjective opinion, and one-party rule is not thought of as fair in the U.S.
     
  5. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Political governance is different in Europe. The Head of government is not elected separately. The Head of the winning party of any election at any time can change when a National Election selects a winner from another party. If not, the same Prime Minister (PM) continues in office.

    There is no elected "President" in Europe. Some countries have them, but in name only; and their sole role is (after an election and if the party in power loses) the passing of the role of the PM to the Head of the winning party.

    We, who? You got a mouse in your pocket?

    Nowhere in the Constitution Is engraved the fact that the US is a two-party system. It is just an historical evolution, one that should not favor either of the two major parties. But it does. And why?

    Because with Gerrymandering and the Electoral College both parties have illegal-but-significant influence on the outcome of the votes of not only the presidency but the HofR and the Senate.

    Aka, Power Politics driven by muney, muney, muney. Meaning how much one party can spend on the BoobTube to get their people elected. Which means what?

    That, like just about everything else in the US, muney-muney-muney is the key factor of any political election. The last presidential campaign spent $2.5B to elect a PotUS and $4B for Congress. Most spent on idiotic TV commercials that sells politicians as if they were "the car you need to have".

    What a waste of funds that could have been better spent elsewhere! Like taxing the piss out of the Wealthy and using the money for a low-cost National Healthcare Service. One that would allow the average lifespan of any American to rise 4 years and be at the same level as a European (83 vs 79)!

    Blah, blah, blah and has nothing to do with "governance" of a nation. Fair is when ONLY THE RESULT OF THE POPULAR-VOTE DETERMINES THE OUTCOME OF AN ELECTION. And fair is when each state has a population count that determines the number of representatives that go to the HofR and the voting is not gerrymandered to maximize ANY PARTICULAR PARTY!

    My Point
    *G
    overnance means providing ALL THE PEOPLE with what they need for a decent existence.
    *And that means NOT SPENDING half the Discretionary Budget on the DoD, just because much of that funding goes into the pockets of Defense Contractors. Moreover, there's no war going on, neither should the US be the world's policeman. (Not when three-quarters of locked-up inmates in the US have no high-school diploma!)
    *And we spend Taxable Income on key-items that are necessary - like both Healthcare and (in this new Information Age of ours) for people to get a Decent Postsecondary-education that will lead to a decent-job!
     
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2018
  6. tkolter

    tkolter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,134
    Likes Received:
    598
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    But the President really is one small cog in the US political machine there are the states and their officers (governors and state legislatures), county and other local offices (one of my favorites is the Sheriff the one law enforcement officer elected into the position) and of course Congress. A third party can hit most of these if they wanted to could you picture our Congress if there were say ten parties they would have to talk and make deals or get nothing done. There is nothing preventing anyone voting for other parties its only a real issue for president and well that's one office out of many.

    As for the last post at the bottom I'm all for education reform but go back to real education most common people should get a heavy employment skills education and leave High School employable in an area of work and the more focused the better if they can leave with a trade good enough to get into it as a helper and can earn their apprenticeship papers later would be a good approach but one of several. And those going to college should go to dedicated academic schools and be well prepared. But if the taxes fund free degrees the government should limit their educations to degrees they decide on at least the major subject since its government money they have a right to be sure its not wasted. I figure if you're smart enough to get into an academic high school and do well and get into college your benefit is your chance for a degree is largely low cost the trade off you can't just study anything and should leave college employable in a career needing the degree. But I'm fair you want to study Gender Studies or Theater you could just it should be on a quota with slots you have to earn your way into. Oh any disruption of the campus or classes like fools you should get booted and lose the free tuition and pay your own way.
     
  7. Empress

    Empress Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2014
    Messages:
    3,142
    Likes Received:
    913
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    You mean just when it doesn't benefit Democrats? Democrats have been quiet about the Electoral College except after the 2000 and 2016 elections. This country was never meant to be controlled by mob rule.

    Gerrymandering? That's why California is solid blue. Again, no complaints about that one.
     
  8. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Look, it is not a question of party. It is a question of a illicit practice that should be made illegal in our voting process.

    People who accept it need to take a Civics Course to understand who gerrymandering warps the popular-vote and is there undemocratic.

    No other developed country on earth employs it ... !
     
  9. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    One small cog?

    Have you ever taken a course in Civics ... ?
     
  10. tkolter

    tkolter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,134
    Likes Received:
    598
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Where is the real government that impacts you day to day your city or village or town then county then state the Federal level is pretty distant over your local alderman or city council member or sheriff or mayor. The President is checked by Congress and the Federal Courts and has limited powers tied by these other branches. And Congress isn't powerless but laws are checked by the Courts and the voters who can toss them out.
     
  11. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    DE FACTO NATIONAL DICTATORSHIP OF ONE PARTY

    A government "impact" is not measurable. All that is measurable is the outcome from the voting process and undertaken by a unmanipulated popular-vote of all citizens - in a town-hall, by the state or nationally.

    Yes, the president is checked by Congress, but when you have the situation of all three bodies (PotUS, Congress and the Supreme Court) in the hands of just one party, what results is a DE FACTO NATIONAL DICTATORSHIP OF ONE PARTY.

    That has happened a number of times in recent American history. Admittedly, the Dictatorship of One Person is not the last bit like a supposed Dictatorship of One Party (as when the Nazis controlled Germany).

    But that is not the issue, in fact. The issue at hand is whether the process of Gerrymandering and the Electoral College are bona-fide electoral methods.

    And, no, they are not (because they manipulate the popular-vote) so we should be rid of them. The popular vote in all instances is the only rule acceptable in a Real Democracy where the true Voice of Citizens is heard and implemented without electoral manipulations.

    In a real two-party system, and if only ALL AMERICANS would respond to their duty to vote, we would have a Bonafide Democracy.

    But, as a nation, we aint there yet ... !

    PS: For further info: Fact check: How often one party has controlled the federal government?
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2018
  12. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    A CHANCE IN HELL

    Wow! Something we can agree about! Will wonders never cease ...

    Nope, nope, nope and nope. What Replicant PotUS is checked by a Replicant Congress? Which one?

    I wanna know, because just last week the Replicant Senate majority voted that Kavanagh should sit with the SC! The tightness of the vote was the strongest in history of the SC.

    You've given reasons (about being "checked") and they have nothing to do whatsoever as regards the manner in which both Gerrymandering and the EC have a totally undemocratic influence upon the observed popular-vote.

    So, since you have NOT UNDERSTOOD, I will say it again:
    *The pure popular-vote manipulated by redistricting the voting-population to favor party-lines along with
    *An EC that in some states does not reflect the pure popular-vote (because of the winner-take-all rule) of a given voting outcome are
    *Both
    unacceptable in any True Democracy.

    Meaning what?That Donald Dork and candidates like him for the Executive office of US governance should not have a chance-in-hell of losing the Popular-Vote and becoming POTUS!

    And we in the US aint got that ... !
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2018

Share This Page