The Last Homely House
General => Council of Cobra => Topic started by: TheJord on April 02, 2011, 08:09:33 PM
-
Canada is holding an election this May because the current Conservative government received a vote of no confidence from Parliament (as they held a minority, this wasn't too hard to achieve).
Canadian parliamentary system is set up in the same manner as my homeland, the UK, in a 'first past the post' system. This means, if there are 101 seats in parliament, the first to 51 holds a majority and can form a government. Here in Canada and in the UK both elections have led to hung parliaments, or minority governments where coalitions between parties exist.
There has been some call for a proportional representation system, where seats are assigned by popular vote percentage. This has pros and cons as well, the main con being fringe (usually extreme) parties can gain seats based on the aggregate amount of votes they receive. Instead of merely losing in constituencies, those votes count towards a total, which is the huge catch 22 of PR.
I find that parties never fully cover the topics I want addressed, and that I have to compromise to vote. I also think people vote because they don't want a certain party leader (ie Michael Ignatieff) in power.
Is there a more harmonious way?
PS, I'm not a Canadian citizen so I can't even vote, but as an observer these are my musings
-
the best solution i've found is to always vote for myself...
just kidding, but you actually can. this girl i know voted for me siter for some public office. just because she didn't like anyone who was running.
-
That's just it, what if I don't like the local person in the constituency, or the party they represent?
-
Democracy is cruel, especially with more people involved. The bigger the crowd, the more people will be disappointed about decisions made. We see it in the Netherlands now, and in more European countries that people tend to vote for those parties that have quite extreme opinions, and that are very populist. People are so used to get what they want, that they are not willing to think rationally. In the end democracy will die due to lack of willing to compromise.....
-
Well, if you find yourself judging between the lessar of two evils, don't vote! Just skip past the issues/offices that don't have appealing options.
-
Not voting is not the smartest thing to do, that will increase the importance of other votes....
-
Not voting is not the smartest thing to do, that will increase the importance of other votes....
true, and i agree with that. but in the extreme cases, a citizen has the right to NOT vote, and should exercise that right if the candidates are such that their political agendas are in conflict with a citizen's personal convictions.
for an easy example, lets say all the candidates want to implement a program to exterminate all the trees on planet earth. an environmentalist should probably go ahead and abstain from that vote for their conscience' sake. or vote for themselves ;-)
-
Quite an unrealistic example mm, but yeah, that's the point I was trying to make.
Just out of curiosity where does everyone fall on the political spectrum? I would put myself slightly right of center if I had to come down on either side.
-
I am independent.
-
I'm in doubt here..... In some aspects I am somewhere at the right I guess, though most would consider me a lefty...there is some red in me ;-)
-
There is political left and right and economic left and right.
-
I did say "political spectrum"...
-
(https://lotrtcgwiki.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frationalrevolution.net%2Fimages%2Fpolicomp6.png&hash=d3fabb10089f8a334917a2214d472b0b0a08be05)
I would say I'm in the liberalism circle on the economic and social right.
-
i'm pretty much an advocate of laissez-faire economics. of TRUE laissez-faire economics. which my country isn't even close to having...
i'm probably to the social right within the liberalism circle. there are a few aspects of libertarianism that i agree with, a few aspects of environmentalism i agree with, etc...
-
HARD CORE CONSERVATIVE! Okay that isn't entirely true. I do believe in social programs BUT I believe those programs should come from sources other than government. The government has three roles in my opinion
1. build infrastructure (IE roads)
2. maintain a military (borders, language, culture)
3. print currency (but not too much. 14 trillion dollars of debt is WAY too much.)
Some people think this is naive. However, I would say spending more money on social programs than your tax base offers is naiveté. Look at all the global upheaval caused by too many government social programs. Heck, look what happened in Greece. However, to be fair, some people think the the private sector can not create social programs because they are profit driven. I never said the private sector had to create the programs. That is what religion is for, caring for others. Let the churches help support the poor and the needy, let the honest folk earn their living, make money, and take care of themselves, and let the government protect the country's border, language, and culture. One of the scariest things I hear is, "I'm from the government, I'm hear to help!"
-
HARD CORE CONSERVATIVE! Okay that isn't entirely true. I do believe in social programs BUT I believe those programs should come from sources other than government. The government has three roles in my opinion
1. build infrastructure (IE roads)
2. maintain a military (borders, language, culture)
3. print currency (but not too much. 14 trillion dollars of debt is WAY too much.)
Some people think this is naive. However, I would say spending more money on social programs than your tax base offers is naiveté. Look at all the global upheaval caused by too many government social programs. Heck, look what happened in Greece. However, to be fair, some people think the the private sector can not create social programs because they are profit driven. I never said the private sector had to create the programs. That is what religion is for, caring for others. Let the churches help support the poor and the needy, let the honest folk earn their living, make money, and take care of themselves, and let the government protect the country's border, language, and culture. One of the scariest things I hear is, "I'm from the government, I'm hear to help!"
Did you miss out education, or do you believe those should be provided privately?
-
schools should be funded privately. In theory (theory mind you, not practice) one major reason for the property tax in the United States is to fund schools. If the education portion of the property tax were removed (since there are no public schools to fund) you could use the extra cash in your wallet to send your child to the available private schools. There would be no tax used to pay teachers, no teacher/administrator retirement plans (funded by taxpayer money), no teachers benefits (again funded by taxpayers), no teachers unions to get tax kick backs, etc. etc. This, again in theory, would give the taxpayer more disposable income with which to educate their child. Then, the best part, once your child is educated you could use your disposable income to improve your own standard of living.
-
Not much incentive to become a teacher then...
Would the prices for these private schools reflect the incomes of the area? How would you control pricing for it? This would be an economists nightmare; price ceilings, deadweight loss et al
-
but why send your kid to school when you can use that extra dough for a new BMW? my point being, there are plenty of parents out there who would not educate their children with that "extra money"
in my opinion, a school system that is free to anyone is an enormous privilege. i just think it should be operated very strictly. in my area our public schools are HORRIBLE. kids aren't actually getting any sort of education. to graduate, all you have to do is show up.
i think one way to help fix this is to kick out the students who are smoking pot at school, beating up other students, etc... in my opinion, these sorts of students have abused their privilege of free education, and should at least be expelled for an extended period of time. in theory this practice would keep the schools full of kids who actually want to learn. and probably reduce the enrollment significantly which would in turn reduce the number of teachers required, which in turn would help the overall quality of teachers to rise because good, qualified teachers will hold the majority of teaching positions.
not saying doing this one thing will fix the massively broken system, but steps like this need to be taken to fix a school system as messed up as america's. it is amazing that we have free education, but seriously, lets try not to take it for granted.
-
Not much incentive to become a teacher then...
Would the prices for these private schools reflect the incomes of the area? How would you control pricing for it? This would be an economists nightmare; price ceilings, deadweight loss et al
Market forces would drive a teachers salary. If a teach improves their craft and becomes an excellent instructor then the variety of private schools would compete for the teachers services. By compete I mean offer better salaries, benefits, and retirement stuff. Since teacher involves molding the minds of young 'uns, more competition should be implemented so teachers don't feel "safe" just because they have a public sector job. MM is right, the system right now is messed up. most of the taxes paid by people which goes to schools ends up in the pockets of administrators and retired instructors. Last I checked, those types of peoples aren't students. Running a school like a lagit business would improve the quality of teacher and student as the private school would have to compete for your business.
@MM: there is no such thing as a free education. someone is paying for it. As mentioned in my previous post, property taxes are used to fund schools. However, I do agree we need to find a way to get the students who want to learn in an environment where they can succeed.
-
Would the prices for these private schools reflect the incomes of the area? How would you control pricing for it? This would be an economists nightmare; price ceilings, deadweight loss et al
This is already a problem. Since schools are funded by local property taxes, poorer areas have much lower quality schooling. Education is a tricky one... I very much agree that there shouldn't be mandatory education, but then how do we ensure that those who actually want to be there aren't being held back by parents or other factors? wish I could post a bit more, but I have to go to school :P
-
There's a flaw on jdizzy001's argument about taxes that need to be pointed out. I'm not american, but of course, I beleive tax systems are not THAT different than those from Brazil, which means I have a small grasp on how it works, having studied it in Law.
While, yes, property taxes are used to fund the school system, those are based on neighborhood and property value (correct me if I'm wrong, as I said, I'm applying the logic of our system), which means that, in a nutshell, those with more money pay more (which is the fundamental of tax law), which also means that some people that pay such taxes do no need to use said system, as they can (and will) afford private schools for their children.
Because of this, if the school system were to be privatized, the amount of money left over for the poorest families from not having to pay the appropriate amount of property tax (probably a PART of it, not the thing as a whole) wouldn't be enough, on its own, to make it possible to afford their children's education. Also, lest us not forget the government would probably simply apply the tax elsewhere, I mean, people are "used to paying it anyway", so, why not direct the money somewhere else (even if "somewhere else" means "their pockets")?
I'm not saying the system should stand as is, since it's really messed up (and to this, I again apply the logic of our system of Public Education here, although ours is not as bad as yours, so I hear). One thing that COULD be done is looking at our Public University systems (in Brazil, people compete to get into PUBLIC Universities, they are better than Private ones by a fair margin, having better students, due to the rough selection process, and having better teachers, due to the whole career plan they have), which, while ALSO a bit flawed, still works. In our Federal Universities, for instance, people compete for a spot in, say, Med School at a rate of 130 people for each spot, rising to close to (or even over) 300 in the best Med School we have in a Federal University. For instance, Law, where I live, has the overall 3rd or 4th course in the country (all Federal Universities, also), and it closes in on 80 people per spot. Seeing as we have a #$&*@! of a 3-day test to get it, and there's no such thing as an "application" that will be read by a Board (we do write an essay, but those are univesal for all courses and unidentified, so the people grading it have no idea even in which course that person is trying to get in, let alone who it is), you have to study pretty hard to get in, meaning the Private Universities, basically (there are exceptions, I know a few), get what is "left over" from those students, meaning, the ones that were not smart enough or that were too lazy to try and get into one of the Public ones, meaning the Federal and State (heck, even City ones where they exist) Universities get better human material to work with from the get go, meaning we post higher gradings on national tests and stuff, not to mention we tend to do better in tests to get into great jobs (where competition is even more dire), resulting in yet another plus for the public system (and it looks awesome in your resumé, as well, it alone can get you some jobs). Funny, though, how we can't get this across to Public Schools, it simply does not work. Used to, some 20+ years ago, but has simply stopped. I could name a few reasons why I believe this happened, but it would generate a whole other discussion.
-
@MM: there is no such thing as a free education. someone is paying for it. As mentioned in my previous post, property taxes are used to fund schools. However, I do agree we need to find a way to get the students who want to learn in an environment where they can succeed.
lol, i was in way way saying that providing education is cost free. i was basically saying that of all the things the government does with taxes, providing education for all citizens is one that i actually am glad my taxes support. i'm happy that my tax money is used to help children of all demographics receive an education. my problem is that because of our flawed system, they aren't really receiving a decent education. this isn't how it has always been, even when my parents graduated high-school, a diploma actually meant something. my generation needs a bachelor's degree just to get a job.
-
i think one way to help fix this is to kick out the students who are smoking pot at school, beating up other students, etc... in my opinion, these sorts of students have abused their privilege of free education, and should at least be expelled for an extended period of time. in theory this practice would keep the schools full of kids who actually want to learn. and probably reduce the enrollment significantly which would in turn reduce the number of teachers required, which in turn would help the overall quality of teachers to rise because good, qualified teachers will hold the majority of teaching positions.
Agreed, 100%, the problem with public schools in the U.S. is not the system (it is a fiscally sound system) it is the people who use it, the students who, as MM mentioned, do drugs and use other students as punching bags, and the teachers who aren't invested in educating (The teachers unions are a huge part of the problem because once you're a teacher, as long as you don't say physically abuse a student or resort to other inexplicable actions, it is virtually impossible for you to lose your position even if your charges learn nothing).
-
FM brings up a good point about proportioned taxes. The only way I could see a student who wants to gain an education in an all private school system would be scholarships. He/She would have to find an organization, be it a corporation or military or medical, and convince that owner/board member that their services are invaluable to their organization. That's how I got my scholarship. It wouldn't be easy in an all private school system but those who really wanted an education would find a way to get one. Heck that is what the whole theory of evolution is about, survival of the fittest!
-
This seems like the biggest challenge, balancing social and economic factors to produce peak output.
I think the most logical solution would be to allow the Borg to assimilate us.
-
I think the most logical solution would be to allow the Borg to assimilate us.
Finally, someone who sees things my way! Resistance is futile!
Seriously though, I think this is one of, if not the best political thread I've seen on the boards. They usually degenerate to name calling and blame throwing. Well done gents.
-
Agreed, 100%, the problem with public schools in the U.S. is not the system (it is a fiscally sound system) it is the people who use it, the students who, as MM mentioned, do drugs and use other students as punching bags, and the teachers who aren't invested in educating (The teachers unions are a huge part of the problem because once you're a teacher, as long as you don't say physically abuse a student or resort to other inexplicable actions, it is virtually impossible for you to lose your position even if your charges learn nothing).
I am a teacher, I am a taxpayer in the Netherlands, so I also have a say in things. Education is by far the best investment a country can do. Especially a small country as the Netherlands is depending on knowledge, since we have little to no resources to fall back to.
For me the bottomline is that everyone should have access to good education, and that the government, us the people, should determine what good education is. There should be standards that are being met by schools. Simply because it is in the best interest of the country.
1 thing though what I dislike about the marketsystem, transferred to educationsystem, is the assumption that it will 'produce' better teachers, or better students. There are a lot of variables. Fact is that the brain is developing until people are in their twenties and that 1 of the last connections made is the one that sets adults apart from youngsters: the ability to be responsible for your actions. Making decisions based upon reason and the ability to see the consequences of those actions.
I read that some should be excluded, but you're only creating new problems. I can say, based upon years of experience, empiric and told by other, more experienced colleges, that there are no kids that are troublesome, there are a lot of kids with troubles. That is an important difference. Kids can come from different social backgrounds and can experience different problems, such as divorced parents, abuse -both verbally as physically- that make kids do stupid things. In a hard system, they become victims of that system, only keeping the troubles alive. I'm not saying that a 'soft' system is the answer, because I see that in our system a lot of people are not taking their responsibilities. I only want to point out that it is difficult to address all the troubles one can face when it comes to education.
But, as said, I believe that:
- education is a main concern of the government
- government should provide standards
- those standards are for students and teachers alike
- there should be a trigger for teachers to keep investing, both subjectbound as pedagogical
- there should be a trigger to keep investing in your self
-
Canada probably has the weirdest political system in existence. Everything from the powerless Senate to the Governor General, the strange party hierarchy and French problem (Quebec came this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_referendum,_1995) close to seceding in the 1990's) make it unfathomably complicated. All that, and, unless in the case of a vote of no confidence, the PM gets to call elections.
I imagine we'll see yet another fractured coalition government with some sort of uneasy alliance between the Liberals, NDP and Bloc Quebecois.
EDIT: Canadian politics are fascinating, and I just wanted to get this topic back on track. ;)
-
The main point was how dissociated party leaders, and their party's policies are.
My mother in law is a Liberal supporter, but hates Michael Ignatieff. So she will probably vote NDP.
And to whoever voted my comment down, this is my thread, go hate somewhere else.
-
And to whoever voted my comment down, this is my thread, go hate somewhere else.
i'll go ahead and :up: it to even it out
-
- education is a main concern of the government
- government should provide standards
- those standards are for students and teachers alike
- there should be a trigger for teachers to keep investing, both subjectbound as pedagogical
- there should be a trigger to keep investing in your self
If education becomes the concern of the government, government corruption finds its way into the school system (at least it has here in the US). Here in the US school administrators keep advocating tax increases to fund schools and every time the taxes go up the administrators line their pockets. The money never reaches the class rooms and the following year more taxes are levied as advocated by the administrators.
In an all privatized education system the trigger, or incentive, for teacher to keep investing would be the motivation to keep their job (just like in the private sector). If I don't perform, I lose my job. If the teachers fail to perform they should lose their job as well. Now I understand this brings up a whole slew of questions such as: how do you measure teacher performance? Well, every employer across the United States has found a way to measure employee performance, I guarantee in an all private school system the employers would find a way to measure teacher performance.
As far as government providing standards goes, that is thin ice. That sounds like an autocracy to me. If it's not an autocracy then it sounds like the idea of Liberty by Law. There is no Law that gives a human liberty. people are free because they are. Then again, you probably meant government should set educational standards. As I have already stated I am against that Idea too.
Nevertheless, that's cool to hear you're a teacher Gil, I didn't know that.
-
I get your points, but it is flawed -obviously in my opinion ;-). You say that with government involvement, corruption will arise. I will not argue that, since everywhere man shows up, corruption follows its trail. But in my opinion free market is way more likely to get corruption going. If you want me to, I can give you numerous examples. Free market works at a small scale perfectly. If I were to start a bakery in a small village, that already has one, it is obviously that I have to increase my quality, or decrease my prises, in order to gain customers. It has proven how ever, numerous times, that the larger the company, the less trasparant it becomes, and more likely to enable corruption. For instance in case of education, if grades were to form a criteria, I could easily manipulate those to get a positive evaluation.
I see government and the people as one. The government should be the first employee of the people, just like your George Washington had in mind, idealizing Cincinatus, the Roman leader who was a farmer, and after serving his people, he went home to work on his land.
The bad thing about democracy is that it has an inbuild flaw, that people can be chosen for the wrong reasons. I don't trust someone who spends so much money just to become a president. You should vote for an idea in general, not a person. In my ideal world politics should be the least appealing jobs out there. People should do it because of their intrinsic moitvation, just the way I became a teacher. Not for the money, or the many holidays I became teacher, the fist can be better, the latter is just fine though. I wanted to become a teacher, to be involved in young peoples lives. Politicians should be in it for the will to serve their country the best way possible, not for the money, or the power. And we all know that there are those who are in it for just these reasons.
You don't become a CEO because of your good looks, or because you are such a funny guy. You are qualified, no matter whether someone else was more qualified and you get the job due to connections. People who know the company thought you were the right man for the job, since your profile matches the companies one.
Another reason why the marketidea doesn't apply to the school is the great variety of factors involved. Here in the Netherlands government is toying with the idea, an idea not a single teacher has asked for. The idea of 'creating' an excellent teacher. Who that teacher is, is to be determined by the principal, and that teacher is granted more money, more time to invest in him self, and is to coach other teachers to become just like him. But what is an excellent teacher? You raised the same question, trusting the answer will come, but I will guarantee you, there won't be an answer for that. You are dealing with so many different issues, it is horrible to set such standards. Social background, ability to learn, class sizes, personalities -both teacher and student- etc etc. What if my pupil is not good at school, grades are poor etc. But at a certain point in his live he makes a right decision involving drugs due to something I have told him. I would say I was the best teacher around for him at that moment, but this is data that can never be measured.
Goal of eduaction is to allow people to invest in them selves, and to make them 'good' citizens. Like I said, there is too much data that can't be measured to set that standard.
Well it has become too long a story, but it has my heart, that's why....sorry if I have bored you ;-)
-
The bad thing about democracy is that it has an inbuild flaw, that people can be chosen for the wrong reasons. I don't trust someone who spends so much money just to become a president. You should vote for an idea in general, not a person.
And that's why most Presidential elections in the US are a 'chose the lesser of two evils' game. The primary eliminates all the good candidates in favor of the most popular, richest, and most outspoken candidates. That's what happened back in '08, and in retrospect, McCain probably wouldn't have been much better than Obama.
As far as the 2012 election goes, I swear, if Donald Trump becomes the GOP candidate, I'm writing in Ron Paul.
-
I have heard so many Americans use the 'lesser of two evils' line!
Try British politics...
-
I AM!!!!
-
Americans:
Who is excited for a government shutdown tomorrow?
-wtk
it happens all the time, they're called holidays.
The government should be the first employee of the people,
that is where we first differ. Despite the fact George Washington may have wanted that, I always supported Jefferson's political ideas over Washington's. I think the gov't should employ enough people to fulfill the three roles I mentioned earlier.
However, I do agree that one should vote for an idea in general, not a person. Politics should be the least appealing jobs out there.
All in all, what I want is for everyone to have the freedom to succeed. To work, succeed and be happy, to achieve the standard of living they desire, and historically, governments have never been able to grant that to the people. They can't grant success, or happiness, because it comes from within. it doesn't come from a government.
-
Just throwing my 2 cents on the education cause I'm a spammer and it's what I do ;)
I think public schools should become mini public universities, namely because the latter are considered successful and people come from all over the world to attend them...and the former...not so much. Obviously they could be less expensive than university, but I think there should be cost. You could offset it so that poor people could go with FAFSA's, financial aid, merit scholarships etc.
Then you hire teachers based solely on how well they teach, since you don't need research, pay them well, and see what happens. That's my :gp: :gp:
-
Then you hire teachers based solely on how well they teach [...]
And just how, exactly, do you measure this? Grades? Those can be forged by the teacher (in fact, I believe some teachers from Chicago got fired a while ago for doing exactly that). Post-school accomplishments? Much more based on sheer luck, brown-nosing or not having other people pulling the rug from under you that merit itself. Not to mention starting points also vary, depending on how much wealth you had already, prior to entering the working force in full.
-
Then you hire teachers based solely on how well they teach [...]
And just how, exactly, do you measure this? Grades? Those can be forged by the teacher (in fact, I believe some teachers from Chicago got fired a while ago for doing exactly that). Post-school accomplishments? Much more based on sheer luck, brown-nosing or not having other people pulling the rug from under you that merit itself. Not to mention starting points also vary, depending on how much wealth you had already, prior to entering the working force in full.
\
Good points all, and this is, admittedly the flaw in my plan. Nevertheless, pretty much any student can tell whether or not a teacher is good. I can pretty much run through my list of teachers and say whether they were good, bad, awesome, sufficient etc. The main problem in having student evaluations factor in is that people might choose based on how much they liked a teacher, not on how well the teacher taught (though, if students like a bad teacher they are probably going to learn more from them than from a hated good teacher). You should definitely not evaluate them on grades, though you could evaluate AP teachers on how well their students did on the AP test.
-
I always supported Jefferson's political ideas over Washington's.
*facepalm*
The views of the Americans commenting on this thread are not necessarily the views of the majority of the American populace.
@jdizzy- How to win friends and influence people rule number #472: Don't tell the Brit your hero is a Francophile.
-
see, i've always supported MY views more than any of the founding fathers... thats how I stay out of trouble...
-
The views of the Americans commenting on this thread are not necessarily the views of the majority of the American populace.
Did I ever say my views reflect those of all Americans? This is a genuine question cause I don't recall saying that. Much like Macheteman, I support my own views, those views just happen to coenside with conservative politics.
*All posts made by jdizzy001, regardless of the thread in which they appear, are expressions of his own opinion and as such are not representative of views shared by any third party unless expressly acknowledged as such by said party.
-
my statement was a joke actually. i mean, naturally each person supports their own view, otherwise, they wouldn't hold to said view. but i in no way pretend that my political views are in any way "good" or "well thought through"
my basic opinion is that there are a lot of things to get upset and worked up about, and politics isn't really one of them for me. when it comes to things like human trafficking, homelessness, social injustice, its a whole different ballgame for me.
-
And look at the returns...
The Greens got their first seat! Okay, all together now...Aw, now their Party Leader can actually be a real MP. Isn't that fun?
The Bloc pretty much no longer exists. They lost 43 out of 47 seats. Farewell, Gilles Duceppe. We will miss your bony face.
The Liberals lost over half their seats. Michael Ignatieff is gone. But hey- they still some clout. 43 Senators is nothing to laugh at... HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Yeah right...
The Conservative took a majority. 143 to 167. Harper is back on top.
The NDP massacred the Bloc, and clobbered the Liberals. Jack Layton will make history as the first Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.
This has been quite a week for news.
The tornadoes and floods devastating the American South... The Royal Wedding... Obama releasing his long-form... Osama getting capped by SEALs... Canadian election upsets... And Libya's still at war...
-
in other news, ket_the_jet is cleaning up grammar around the boards and across the galaxy.