OT - Vote on DST

[greenbean.sixpack]

What stops a national vote on issues like year round DST? I realize we're a democratic republic, but many states have individual issues on the ballot, for example MS had two votes (20 years apart) on changing the state flag.

I'm assuming politicians want to keep as much power out of the hands of citizens as possible? Plus they'd get less kickbacks from lobbyists if the people had more say in national issues?

 

[dorndawg]

As much as elected leaders suck, I'm not sure I want the majority of the public making decisions for me either right now.

 

[DesotoCountyDawg]

There’s no mechanism for a national referendum nor should there be. Seems a bit dangerous honestly.

 

[DesotoCountyDawg]

As much as elected leaders suck, I'm not sure I want the majority of the public making decisions for me either right now.

Or ever.

 

[greenbean.sixpack]

There’s no mechanism for a national referendum nor should there be. Seems a bit dangerous honestly.

So an issue like this, similar to the state flag vote, that will have no huge effect on the national economy, defense, etc., the will of the people should be ignored?

The older i get, the more i hate and distrust politicians, they are becoming our overlords, royalty in effect. If you've seen the attempts at interviews of Marsha Blackburn, you can tell she has destain for common people, she doesn't even attempt to hide it. How dare anyone question her.

I realize most folks nowadays cling to their parties ideology, no matter how nonsensical, but your party isn't looking out for you it's using you.

If the current and previous POTUS took a cognitive test, the results would likely reveal significant cognitive decline. But the sheep, as we are, just follow and support.

By the way, i equally hate both partiees. I vote R, but i don't trust or support them, it's the lesser of evils.

 

[CochiseCowbell]

As much as elected leaders suck, I'm not sure I want the majority of the public making decisions for me either right now.

 

[Villagedawg]

There’s no mechanism for a national referendum nor should there be. Seems a bit dangerous honestly.

Right. That's the whole point of the current Constitution.

 

[L4Dawg]

What stops a national vote on issues like year round DST? I realize we're a democratic republic, but many states have individual issues on the ballot, for example MS had two votes (20 years apart) on changing the state flag.

I'm assuming politicians want to keep as much power out of the hands of citizens as possible? Plus they'd get less kickbacks from lobbyists if the people had more say in national issues?

We are not a democracy. We are a Constitutional Representative Republic. Long may it stand!

 

[Villagedawg]

We are not a democracy.

Laughably wrong.

Clarifying comment: Wrong in that our system is a democratic system on paper. Everyone gets a vote.
Correct in that the government is no longer responsive to the people. It is responsive to it's sponsors.

 

[L4Dawg]

Laughably wrong.

We are not a democracy. We don't directly vote on laws.

"A republic, if you can keep it".....Benjamin Franklin. Argue with him.

 

[greenbean.sixpack]

We are not a democracy. We are a Constitutional Representative Republic. Long may it stand!

The country, as envisioned by our founders, is long gone and will never come back. We have once again have a ruling class, the main issue our founders fought against. We'll have dictator eventually (we may already have him).

 

[L4Dawg]

The country, as envisioned by our founders, is long gone and will never come back. We have once again have a ruling class, the main issue our founders fought against. We'll have dictator eventually (we may already have him).

It's no different than it was in their day. They formed parties immediately, and the class system was even more entrenched then than it is now. Almost all of the Founding Fathers were wealthy men.

 

[Dawgzilla2]

Yeah, the only "national referendum" would be a Constitutional Amendment...and we wouldnt be able to withdraw the Amendment when it didnt work out.

I have posted this before, but one thing that would help give individuals more of a voice with their congressman is increasing the number of Representatives. For no good reason at all, we have been frozen at 435 for over a century.

Its not as crazy as it sounds at first. Drastically increasing the size of Congress would address a lot of the issues we are having.

We are supposed to adjust the size of Congress after every census, but the Constitution only allows this. Its not required. One of the original 12 Amendments proposed by Madison would set a minimum number of Representatives based on the census, but it was never ratified.

Right now, each congressional district has at least 750,000 citizens in it. That is way too many. Madison foresaw as many as 60,000 people per district.

Now, Im not suggesting we should have over 5,000 Congressmen right now, but we should have at least 1,300. That would be around 250,000 people per representative, which is much more reasonable. It makes your Congressman more accessible, and more beholden to the interests of your community.

Plus, just try to gerrymander your way around those numbers!

 

[greenbean.sixpack]

Yeah, the only "national referendum" would be a Constitutional Amendment...and we wouldnt be able to withdraw the Amendment when it didnt work out.

I have posted this before, but one thing that would help give individuals more of a voice with their congressman is increasing the number of Representatives. For no good reason at all, we have been frozen at 435 for over a century.

Its not as crazy as it sounds at first. Drastically increasing the size of Congress would address a lot of the issues we are having.

We are supposed to adjust the size of Congress after every census, but the Constitution only allows this. Its not required. One of the original 12 Amendments proposed by Madison would set a minimum number of Representatives based on the census, but it was never ratified.

Right now, each congressional district has at least 750,000 citizens in it. That is way too many. Madison foresaw as many as 60,000 people per district.

Now, Im not suggesting we should have over 5,000 Congressmen right now, but we should have at least 1,300. That would be around 250,000 people per representative, which is much more reasonable. It makes your Congressman more accessible, and more beholden to the interests of your community.

Plus, just try to gerrymander your way around those numbers!

Interesting. Unfortunately, with no mechanism for a national referendum, those in power will do everything possible to protect their power. This is the reason we don't have term limits or age limits. Just think if ol' Benny (insert the name of your local representative), had to share kick backs with someone.

 

[DesotoCountyDawg]

Laughably wrong.

Clarifying comment: Wrong in that our system is a democratic system on paper. Everyone gets a vote.
Correct in that the government is no longer responsive to the people. It is responsive to it's sponsors.

A referendum like he’s suggesting would be a direct democracy.

 

[o_Hot Rock]

So an issue like this, similar to the state flag vote, that will have no huge effect on the national economy, defense, etc., the will of the people should be ignored?

The older i get, the more i hate and distrust politicians, they are becoming our overlords, royalty in effect. If you've seen the attempts at interviews of Marsha Blackburn, you can tell she has destain for common people, she doesn't even attempt to hide it. How dare anyone question her.

I realize most folks nowadays cling to their parties ideology, no matter how nonsensical, but your party isn't looking out for you it's using you.

If the current and previous POTUS took a cognitive test, the results would likely reveal significant cognitive decline. But the sheep, as we are, just follow and support.

By the way, i equally hate both partiees. I vote R, but i don't trust or support them, it's the lesser of evils.

Why in 17 do we bring up politics on this board. It's supposed to be about Mississippi State, but I got time. I am sitting here doing nothing so I will speak. Lock this thread if it gets too hot for you.

I agree with everything you just said but the last statement about lesser of two evils. Democrats aren't quoting Nazi war criminals in congress and backing a self-proclaimed sex offender like Trump (bragged about grabbing women) who has done nothing but create chaos around the world and manipulate the markets to get rich. And yes, E Jean Carroll did get about 5 million of the settlement where Trump stuck his fingers up her ****** in that dress shop across from his office. Maga's will deny it happened but it was proven in court, wasn't called rape but you stick your fingers up a woman's privates and still can get support from so called Christians then that guy must be truly blessed by Satan himself.

There has been billions bet on shorting oil ten minutes before Trump would tell the world a deal was in place with Iran and nothing would be in place. He did that about 14 times and oil would drop every time. Millions would be lost by institutional investors. Who are they? your 401Ks, pension plans, endowment funds meanwhile his billionaire buddies are getting rich due to market manipulation. He has personally made about 2 billion since coming back into office this term but Maga's are saying crap like "He is donating his salary." Really?

People went insane following Pelosi's investments and they were right to be angry about what she did. That **** was wrong as she was most likely using insider information to buy things but that is far different than manipulating the market with lies about deals that weren't happening.

Then the Epstein files
One of Trump's greatest supporters, Marjorie Taylor Greene, was ran out of Congress because she would not stop advocating to release the Epstein files. Trump turned on her like a rabid dog and it's like nothing happened. Maga's still support him. I truly don't get it. Trump is way deep in that **** and mentioned thousands of times in Epstein files and is either directly involved at the very least protecting others. Epstein got a lot of support from a a certain group to get where he was. Look that up if you dare.

But but but abortion is murder. Abortion is not murder or the bible would not have have given a priest instructions on how give one if a woman lies about an affair. (Numbers chapter 5 - the Lord makes your uterus drop, your womb discharge)

What's crazy to me is before 1977 most Christians were pro choice because that is how the bible was interpreted but in 1977 the republicans started a political campaign to convince Christians that it is murder to get you to vote for them. No self-respecting Christian dare acknowledge it but that is how that happened.

One of my basic truths, if a man uses God to promote himself or get rich, that is where the evil lies.

The Bible says there will be many false prophets, it is crazy how they get support of Christians. Part of the issue is that Christianity has been manipulated for centuries by Governments to get them to buy into the what they want. It didn't start with the Crusades. It was in Rome with the Roman Catholics and religion has been manipulated by many societies. I mean Christians don't do human sacrifice like the Mayans but they are perfectly fine killing others if you can paint them as evil somehow. Bible says don't kill, it didn't say you can kill if...

You want to claim to be a Christian nation, then start doing what Jesus taught. He said he will not know you... What you do to the least of .... If you don't think what has been happening since Trump got into office is EVIL then we have already lost. You want a Christian nation then provide Universal Healthcare, feed everyone, visit the imprisoned and figure out why we imprison a higher portion of our society than any nation ever. Then when they are fed and healthy teach them to "FISH" by educating them and provide incentive for work with wages that are fair and make sure everyone has opportunity. Then you can witness to someone but ruling a nation by religious rules is BS and was never advocated by Christ.

So, when you say the lesser of two evils, I am not buying it. I say you chose poorly.

 

[DesotoCountyDawg]

So an issue like this, similar to the state flag vote, that will have no huge effect on the national economy, defense, etc., the will of the people should be ignored?

The older i get, the more i hate and distrust politicians, they are becoming our overlords, royalty in effect. If you've seen the attempts at interviews of Marsha Blackburn, you can tell she has destain for common people, she doesn't even attempt to hide it. How dare anyone question her.

I realize most folks nowadays cling to their parties ideology, no matter how nonsensical, but your party isn't looking out for you it's using you.

If the current and previous POTUS took a cognitive test, the results would likely reveal significant cognitive decline. But the sheep, as we are, just follow and support.

By the way, i equally hate both partiees. I vote R, but i don't trust or support them, it's the lesser of evils.

I totally understand your distrust for government and a lot of our elected officials, but you can’t allow the general public to have referendums. You say as you’ve gotten older, the more you distrust people elected but as I’ve gotten older, I realize how stupid people are in general and you would get all sorts of referendums on things that people would just go along with that would probably not be very good.

 

[mstateglfr]

Right now, each congressional district has at least 750,000 citizens in it. That is way too many. Madison foresaw as many as 60,000 people per district.

Now, Im not suggesting we should have over 5,000 Congressmen right now, but we should have at least 1,300. That would be around 250,000 people per representative, which is much more reasonable. It makes your Congressman more accessible, and more beholden to the interests of your community.

Plus, just try to gerrymander your way around those numbers!

YEP!


And since you are talking House numbers, here is an interesting stat comparison...
The House increased seats 15 times between 1790 and 1910 due to population growth.
Its been almost 100 years since the current number of House Reps was set.

 

[goindhoo]

It is time for a vote like this. Go ahead and add term limits and age ceiling to the ballot for these elected politicians.

 

[Dawgzilla2]

Interesting. Unfortunately, with no mechanism for a national referendum, those in power will do everything possible to protect their power. This is the reason we don't have term limits or age limits. Just think if ol' Benny (insert the name of your local representative), had to share kick backs with someone.

Thats the problem. How do you convince Congress to vote for expansion and reduce their individual power?

Well, I have a plan.

James Madison originally proposed 12 Amendments to his fancy new Constitution. Amendments 3 - 12 were the Bill of Rights, which were adopted and ratified as Amendments 1-10.

Proposed Amendment 2 was finally ratified in 1992, and became our 27th Amendment. It simply says that any pay raise Congress passes cannot go into effect until the next Congress is seated.

Madison's first proposed Amendment was to correct his oversight in not setting a minimum number of Representatives. The size of Congress was set to grow with the population.

There are 2 problems with original Amenment 1. First it has a transcription error that makes it slightly illogical. Second, it's formula for expansion stops at 60,000 residents per Rep. Not really workable today, since it would give us over 5500

But...what if we could get States to start ratifying the original first Amendment, and scare the bejeezus out of Congress? Then we could force them to expand voluntarily or else the Amendment would be ratified.

It would take a lot of money and effort to educate the people and try to present the issue as non partisan, but I think it would be easier than convening a new Constitutional Convention.

 

[dorndawg]

Thats the problem. How do you convince Congress to vote for expansion and reduce their individual power?

Well, I have a plan.

James Madison originally proposed 12 Amendments to his fancy new Constitution. Amendments 3 - 12 were the Bill of Rights, which were adopted and ratified as Amendments 1-10.

Proposed Amendment 2 was finally ratified in 1992, and became our 27th Amendment. It simply says that any pay raise Congress passes cannot go into effect until the next Congress is seated.

Madison's first proposed Amendment was to correct his oversight in not setting a minimum number of Representatives. The size of Congress was set to grow with the population.

There are 2 problems with original Amenment 1. First it has a transcription error that makes it slightly illogical. Second, it's formula for expansion stops at 60,000 residents per Rep. Not really workable today, since it would give us over 5500

But...what if we could get States to start ratifying the original first Amendment, and scare the bejeezus out of Congress? Then we could force them to expand voluntarily or else the Amendment would be ratified.

It would take a lot of money and effort to educate the people and try to present the issue as non partisan, but I think it would be easier than convening a new Constitutional Convention.

I agree with you, but I'd favor expanding the Supreme Court even more. I'd vote for going to least 13 - maybe add 2 after the 28 election and 2 after '32. The size of the Supreme Court (and all federal courts) is set by Congress.

 

[greenbean.sixpack]

One of my basic truths, if a man uses God to promote himself or get rich, that is where the evil lies.

Also, the more people talk about integrity, the less they have.

 

[Dawgzilla2]

I agree with you, but I'd favor expanding the Supreme Court even more. I'd vote for going to least 13 - maybe add 2 after the 28 election and 2 after '32. The size of the Supreme Court (and all federal courts) is set by Congress.

Im in favor of increasing the size of the Supreme Court, but Im not sure how that would affect Daylight Savings Time.

 

[leeinator]

I say let the farmers decide. They grow stuff that we eat. I give them preference for that. Whatever they want, I'm happy with.

 

[leeinator]

I agree with you, but I'd favor expanding the Supreme Court even more. I'd vote for going to least 13 - maybe add 2 after the 28 election and 2 after '32. The size of the Supreme Court (and all federal courts) is set by Congress.

Why would you want to expand the Supreme Court? What would 13 justices do different than 9 justices?

 

[patdog]

Why would you want to expand the Supreme Court? What would 13 justices do different than 9 justices?

Heck, 9 is already a huge court. The 1 reform I would make is you get 1 18-year term, staggered so a new justice comes in every 2 years.

 

[DesotoCountyDawg]

I say let the farmers decide. They grow stuff that we eat. I give them preference for that. Whatever they want, I'm happy with.

 

[thatsbaseball]

Why would you want to expand the Supreme Court? What would 13 justices do different than 9 justices?

Hell we can't even find nine who can correctly read and interpret the Constitution now .

 

[dorndawg]

What would 13 justices do different than 9 justices?

Excellent question! For one, it would it would give 1 justice per appeals court circuit (Scotus justices are assigned to one or more for certain matters, often involving matters of temporal importance). For another, and more importantly, it would lessen the influence of any 1 justice and have less of an effect on the Court as individual Justices come on and off the court.

 

[dorndawg]

Heck, 9 is already a huge court. The 1 reform I would make is you get 1 18-year term, staggered so a new justice comes in every 2 years.

For a country of 330 million people in an increasingly complex world? IDK, when I think about it that way even 13 sounds preposterously low.

I'm generally ok with some kind of term/age limits for federal judges.

 

[thatsbaseball]

I'm a little old fashion I guess but I still view the working family raising their children as the foundation of this country . Year around DST has proven (see 1974) to be a real and very unpopular hardship on parents with children in school in a large number of locations . In my mind this should be the MAJOR consideration before making this mistake again .

 

[patdog]

For a country of 330 million people in an increasingly complex world? IDK, when I think about it that way even 13 sounds preposterously low.

I'm generally ok with some kind of term/age limits for federal judges.

It’s a court. Not a representative body like the house or senate.

 

[dorndawg]

It’s a court. Not a representative body like the house or senate.

Of course. But they have literal life-and-death issues before them and can only grant cert on so many cases per term. We've decided as a nation that the legal route is often the one Americans are forced to take to address grievances, so the "courthouse" should be open and accessible. Appeals should follow suit.

Definitely an interesting topic when you start thinking on it.

 

[Dawgzilla2]

Heck, 9 is already a huge court. The 1 reform I would make is you get 1 18-year term, staggered so a new justice comes in every 2 years.

I dont think that is Constitutional, abd the guys it affects would be the ones deciding if it is constitutional.

But there has been a proposal that after a certain term the Justices get promoted to a Senior Justice status and only weigh in on certain cases.

 

[greenbean.sixpack]

I'm a little old fashion I guess but I still view the working family raising their children as the foundation of this country . Year around DST has proven (see 1974) to be a real and very unpopular hardship on parents with children in school in a large number of locations . In my mind this should be the MAJOR consideration before making this mistake again .

A ton has changed since 1974. The old, "kids would be getting on the bus in the dark" argument is what you hear most. Back then (i'm 60), kids went home after school, noways there's tons of kid's activities after school. Plus today there are many more households with both parents working, so many of these kids are in after school care from 1st grade on.

Personally, i'd rather drive to work in the dark (i already do that) but have a little more daylight after work in the winter. I don't know if it would have a huge impact on the economy either way, but there would probably be more people spending money after work in the winter, so maybe a slight economic boost.

Year round DST wouldn't have much impact on MS, but it may have more impact on Northern states.

For me, get off work at 5:00, get to deer stand at 5:30, hunt until 6:30, also in instead of 0430 wake ups, it'd be 0530 with plenty of time to make it to the stand before sunrise.

The "very unpopular" narrative is not true. 58% opposed it. Not some overwhelming majority. Here are the gallup poll numbers from 73:

• December 1973: 79% favored year-round Daylight Saving Time before it began.
• February 1974: Support fell to about 60% after people experienced it.
• October 1974: Only 42% favored it, with a majority opposed by then

 

[mstateglfr]

A ton has changed since 1974. The old, "kids would be getting off the bus in the dark" argument is what you hear most. Back then (i'm 60), kids went home after school, noways there's tons of kid's activities after school. Plus today there are many more households with both parents working, so many of these kids are in after school care from 1st grade on.

Personally, i'd rather drive to work in the dark (i already do that) but have a little more daylight after work in the winter. I don't know if it would have a huge impact on the economy either way, but there would probably be more people spending money after work in the winter, so maybe a slight economic boost.

The commentary is about how kids would be waiting for the bus in the dark in the morning. That is what you hear most.
If the sun rises at 9am and kids go to the bus stop at 730am, then they are walking to the stop and waiting there in the dark...so not even at dawn.

 

[patdog]

A ton has changed since 1974. The old, "kids would be getting off the bus in the dark" argument is what you hear most. Back then (i'm 60), kids went home after school, noways there's tons of kid's activities after school. Plus today there are many more households with both parents working, so many of these kids are in after school care from 1st grade on.

Personally, i'd rather drive to work in the dark (i already do that) but have a little more daylight after work in the winter. I don't know if it would have a huge impact on the economy either way, but there would probably be more people spending money after work in the winter, so maybe a slight economic boost.

Year round DST wouldn't have much impact on MS, but it may have more impact on Northern states.

For me, get off work at 5:00, get to deer stand at 5:30, hunt until 6:30, also in instead of 0430 wake ups, it'd be 0530 with plenty of time to make it to the stand before sunrise.

The "very unpopular" narrative is not true. 58% opposed it. Not some overwhelming majority. Here are the gallup poll numbers from 73:

• December 1973: 79% favored year-round Daylight Saving Time before it began.
• February 1974: Support fell to about 60% after people experienced it.
• October 1974: Only 42% favored it, with a majority opposed by then

A drop from 79% approval to 42% approval in 10 months is beyond massive. There’s no other way to spin it except people thought they’d like it until they got it & then realized it absolutely sucked.

 

[thatsbaseball]

The commentary is about how kids would be waiting for the bus in the dark in the morning. That is what you hear most.
If the sun rises at 9am and kids go to the bus stop at 730am, then they are walking to the stop and waiting there in the dark...so not even at dawn.

and if you'll check a number child deaths were blamed on the late sunrise at the time . I remember it all very well and it was huge mistake.

 

[greenbean.sixpack]

The commentary is about how kids would be waiting for the bus in the dark in the morning. That is what you hear most.
If the sun rises at 9am and kids go to the bus stop at 730am, then they are walking to the stop and waiting there in the dark...so not even at dawn.

Oops sorry, good catch

 

[greenbean.sixpack]

A drop from 79% approval to 42% approval in 10 months is beyond massive. There’s no other way to spin it except people thought they’d like it until they got it & then realized it absolutely sucked.

It may be a massive swing, but stating an overwhelming majority were against it is a false statement.