Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So instead of one man, one vote, everyone gets (at least) 2 votes. What could go wrong?
The people who couldn't figure out the Butterfly Ballot in Florida, and the people who couldn't figure out that Bernie won the Iowa Caucus, are just gonna love it. And the Social Media giants are gonna have a field day, banning people who complain that it's too complicated (or not banning them, depending on who's complaining).
This is an honest question, not snark: don't you think the concerns you list are simply fear-based, as opposed to based in grounded principles about why it is or is not a preferable system? Also, are you just opposing it here because you see some people you identify as liberals, Democrats, or whatever promoting it? It actually draws interest from people all over the political spectrum.
The main appeal is:
1) it is harder for candidates with extremist views to get in office when people don't feel they *have* to vote for that candidate as their #1 to prevent a different kind of extremist getting in office
2) it will therefore open up the pathway for more political parties (third? fourth? fifth? parties) or independents to get in office because people won't be afraid to "throw away their vote"
3) it will therefore allow more creative thinking to address some of our most pressing issues, and in all likelihood, over time, reduce some of the extreme polarization we have in our country.
It would certainly take public education efforts to get everyone "in the know" about how it works. And it would certainly rely on people becoming more familiar with candidates outside of whether they have a D or R next to their name, which is a good thing. Like I said, it's really not to the benefit of either party. In Maine, for instance, it was actually the interior (most Republican part of state) that favored implementing the system.
I hope we get the system in Pennsylvania, but I'm not holding my breath. Pennsylvanians cannot petition for referendum, and I'm sure the sorry excuse we have for a state legislature will not be vying to implement a system bound to de-office many of them.
This is an honest question, not snark: don't you think the concerns you list are simply fear-based, as opposed to based in grounded principles about why it is or is not a preferable system? Also, are you just opposing it here because you see some people you identify as liberals, Democrats, or whatever promoting it? It actually draws interest from people all over the political spectrum.
The main appeal is:
1) it is harder for candidates with extremist views to get in office when people don't feel they *have* to vote for that candidate as their #1 to prevent a different kind of extremist getting in office
2) it will therefore open up the pathway for more political parties (third? fourth? fifth? parties) or independents to get in office because people won't be afraid to "throw away their vote"
3) it will therefore allow more creative thinking to address some of our most pressing issues, and in all likelihood, over time, reduce some of the extreme polarization we have in our country.
It would certainly take public education efforts to get everyone "in the know" about how it works. And it would certainly rely on people becoming more familiar with candidates outside of whether they have a D or R next to their name, which is a good thing. Like I said, it's really not to the benefit of either party. In Maine, for instance, it was actually the interior (most Republican part of state) that favored implementing the system.
I hope we get the system in Pennsylvania, but I'm not holding my breath. Pennsylvanians cannot petition for referendum, and I'm sure the sorry excuse we have for a state legislature will not be vying to implement a system bound to de-office many of them.
As a libertarian with utter disdain for both major parties, I wholehearted embrace the concept of ranked choice. That would be a boon for third party and independent candidates. In 2016, the Trump-Clinton race was between the two most publicly disliked candidates in history, number 1 (Trump) and number 2 (Clinton) of ALL Presidential candidate since the advent of opinion polling. But they were both SO bad that the other side felt compelled to vote against their enemy's "worst of the worst", even if their own side was nearly intolerable. In that race, Gary Johnson was the best candidate in the race in pretty much every measurable way (experience, temperament, physical & mental health, platform, etc.). I always wondered how much of the first ballot vote he would have gotten in a ranked choice system where everyone could still vote for their "lesser of two evils" candidates #2 and not worry about it contributing to the greater evil getting elected. 20%? 30%? Higher than that and he might have won (because he would have won outright on ALL second ballot scenarios that include him).
As a libertarian with utter disdain for both major parties, I wholehearted embrace the concept of ranked choice. That would be a boon for third party and independent candidates. In 2016, the Trump-Clinton race was between the two most publicly disliked candidates in history, number 1 (Trump) and number 2 (Clinton) of ALL Presidential candidate since the advent of opinion polling. But they were both SO bad that the other side felt compelled to vote against their enemy's "worst of the worst", even if their own side was nearly intolerable. In that race, Gary Johnson was the best candidate in the race in pretty much every measurable way (experience, temperament, physical & mental health, platform, etc.). I always wondered how much of the first ballot vote he would have gotten in a ranked choice system where everyone could still vote for their "lesser of two evils" candidates #2 and not worry about it contributing to the greater evil getting elected. 20%? 30%? Higher than that and he might have won (because he would have won outright on ALL second ballot scenarios that include him).
And Johnson would have still lost.
They've been talking ranked choice here in Maryland and getting rid of the closed primary.
That way, when it comes to the General Election, with the roughly 70%ish Democrat-30%ish Republican registration a Democrat will always win because the top two candidates will be Democrats. The Party isn't going to allow a Republican become Governor again as has happened 3 out of the last 5 election.
I never said anything to the contrary, but it just happens to be a particularly salient point for the PA GOP for this midterm, as both Schapiro and Fetterman won their primaries with vast majority support.
I certainly hope so. It's pretty common sense in my book. Basically, you get to pick (at least) your top two candidates in a desired order. If no candidate receives a majority during the first count of votes, an automatic run-off count or election occurs using secondary votes until one candidate achieves 50% +1 of votes.
Minor nit:
For those minor parties to have a chance, every voter should rank all the candidates on the ballot, which ranked-choice ballots allow. You get to rank as many candidates as are listed on the ballot.
If the top vote-getter fails to get 50%+1 of all the votes cast, the votes for the first-ranked candidate with the fewest votes get distributed to the second-ranked candidates on those ballots. If still no majority, the ballots for the candidate with the fewest #1 and #2 votes put together get distributed among those voters' third choices. And so on until someone crosses the 50%+1 threshold.
This is also known as "instant runoff" voting for a reason that should be clear from an explanation of the process. You could still use this system in a primary election to choose the two candidates that will face each other in the general, but it seems to me like that would be redundant with an open or "jungle" primary.
My choice to manage local school property taxes would be to require a referendum for every proposed tax increase. The school board wants to raise taxes? Then the school district needs to make its care to the voters, and the voters need to approve that increase.
Quote:
Originally Posted by villageidiot1
I agree with eliminating Act 48. School districts are often paying for teachers to take college courses for a master's degree.
How in the world could anyone want to eliminate professional development for teachers? I swear, some folks just want teachers to fail.
Like every other profession on this planet, education is always changing. Teachers need to keep up with best practices, new developments and methods, etc. Relying on what you learned 20, 30, 40 years ago isn't going to cut it for today's kids.
Quote:
The master's degree often has nothing to do with what the teacher is teaching. For example, few math teachers are getting a master's degree in math, or history teachers getting a master's degree in history.
Teachers don't always teach the same age range/subject/classroom for their entire careers. For instance, an elementary school teacher may be encouraged by his/her district to gain a master's in special education
to work with an entirely different group of students. What the teacher is teaching now is not always what the teacher will be teaching in the future.
Quote:
It is an unnecessary expense for districts. In addition, it takes their focus away from teaching their current classes.
You think all teachers do in their lives is teach? You'd have them chained to their classrooms?
And why shouldn't a school district invest in its personnel? Shouldn't that district want the best education possible for its students? Shouldn't that district value its teachers and give them the tools they need for their job?
Sounds like you don't care what kind of education kids in the state's public schools receive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wells5
Eliminating collective bargaining is the most effective way to curb the power of teachers unions and the militants who control the local unions.
How do we curb the power of militants who want to eliminate teachers' unions?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duderino
At its core, your fundamental concern about "saving money" and "easing regulations" are pound-wise and penny-foolish if they come at the expense of school and teacher quality, but that rarely factors into the economic equation for school budget critics.
This is an honest question, not snark: don't you think the concerns you list are simply fear-based, as opposed to based in grounded principles about why it is or is not a preferable system? Also, are you just opposing it here because you see some people you identify as liberals, Democrats, or whatever promoting it? It actually draws interest from people all over the political spectrum.
The main appeal is:
1) it is harder for candidates with extremist views to get in office when people don't feel they *have* to vote for that candidate as their #1 to prevent a different kind of extremist getting in office
2) it will therefore open up the pathway for more political parties (third? fourth? fifth? parties) or independents to get in office because people won't be afraid to "throw away their vote"
3) it will therefore allow more creative thinking to address some of our most pressing issues, and in all likelihood, over time, reduce some of the extreme polarization we have in our country.
It would certainly take public education efforts to get everyone "in the know" about how it works. And it would certainly rely on people becoming more familiar with candidates outside of whether they have a D or R next to their name, which is a good thing. Like I said, it's really not to the benefit of either party. In Maine, for instance, it was actually the interior (most Republican part of state) that favored implementing the system.
I hope we get the system in Pennsylvania, but I'm not holding my breath. Pennsylvanians cannot petition for referendum, and I'm sure the sorry excuse we have for a state legislature will not be vying to implement a system bound to de-office many of them.
I'm honestly concerned about people not understanding how it works, thereby eroding confidence in Our Democracy. We're told poor people can't figure out how to get an ID card, which endangers Our Democracy, but they're supposed to figure out Rank Choice voting without help? For some reason I envision insidious but cheerful volunteer "helpers" going out to visit the elderly to sort out the mail-in Rank Choice ballot. No thanks.
With regular voting the User Interface is already WYSIWYG, 1 Person=1 Vote, winner take all.
How in the world could anyone want to eliminate professional development for teachers? I swear, some folks just want teachers to fail.
Like every other profession on this planet, education is always changing. Teachers need to keep up with best practices, new developments and methods, etc. Relying on what you learned 20, 30, 40 years ago isn't going to cut it for today's kids.
Teachers don't always teach the same age range/subject/classroom for their entire careers. For instance, an elementary school teacher may be encouraged by his/her district to gain a master's in special education
to work with an entirely different group of students. What the teacher is teaching now is not always what the teacher will be teaching in the future.
You think all teachers do in their lives is teach? You'd have them chained to their classrooms?
And why shouldn't a school district invest in its personnel? Shouldn't that district want the best education possible for its students? Shouldn't that district value its teachers and give them the tools they need for their job?
Sounds like you don't care what kind of education kids in the state's public schools receive.
I'm guessing you are not a teacher. I was never a teacher but I have been subbing for the past ten years. I have nothing against professional development if it helps make someone a better classroom teacher. I have done in-service education with teachers as part of being a long-term sub.
I have yet to see a teacher take classes so they can teach another subject or become more proficient in the subject the are teaching. For example, I haven't seen history teachers get a masters' in history or in another subject area. They will typically enroll in a program such as: Master of Arts in Education, Training, and Instructional Technology or Administration and Leadership Pre-K-12 Principal.
I personally knew one college professor who taught a very popular course in Foundations of Education. His summer classes sometimes met at a local bar. Once he had them attend an art class where the art students were sketching a nude model. I also knew the local assistant superintendent who told me the district was upset they had to keep paying for these courses, but there was nothing they could do about it.
I'm guessing you are not a teacher. I was never a teacher but I have been subbing for the past ten years. I have nothing against professional development if it helps make someone a better classroom teacher. I have done in-service education with teachers as part of being a long-term sub.
I have yet to see a teacher take classes so they can teach another subject or become more proficient in the subject the are teaching. For example, I haven't seen history teachers get a masters' in history or in another subject area. They will typically enroll in a program such as: Master of Arts in Education, Training, and Instructional Technology or Administration and Leadership Pre-K-12 Principal.
I personally knew one college professor who taught a very popular course in Foundations of Education. His summer classes sometimes met at a local bar. Once he had them attend an art class where the art students were sketching a nude model. I also knew the local assistant superintendent who told me the district was upset they had to keep paying for these courses, but there was nothing they could do about it.
That may depend on where you are. Your location, until recently, generally had a surplus of teachers so there wasn't any reason to get another discipline such as SPED.
Where there are chronic shortages, such as many school systems in Maryland, many advocated getting another discipline and would sweeten the deal with specialty pay. My system also put a big push on getting the Administration certification because it was looking down the road at shortages. Now, that's what I did but I never had any intention of becoming an administrator for a number of personal and professional reasons.
As far as school systems paying for those grad credits, yes they do. In theory. My particular one would run out of money for them at 8:05AM on July 1st so if you weren't in line at 6AM you didn't get reimbursement, which typically covered 1/3 or less of the actual cost.
My youngest daughter is currently getting her Master's in Euro History. Many of her, mine and Mrs. NBP's colleagues (or in the latter two cases, former colleagues) are getting their Master's in Library and Information Media due to decades long shortages of school Librarians here. That's been ongoing for close to twenty years.
I have nothing against professional development if it helps make someone a better classroom teacher. I have done in-service education with teachers as part of being a long-term sub.
In other words you took the in service days getting to sit alone. since you do not have a PDE record, there was nothing to add for you AND many teachers take additional praxxis at this time - which you would not
Quote:
I have yet to see a teacher take classes so they can teach another subject or become more proficient in the subject the are teaching.
cuz you aint been around
Quote:
For example, I haven't seen history teachers get a masters' in history or in another subject area. They will typically enroll in a program such as: Master of Arts in Education, Training, and Instructional Technology or Administration and Leadership Pre-K-12 Principal.
again, you aint been around. I know of BOTH. but then again, there are those who accuse me of having a missus that is a teacher cred'd in multiple states....and they would be right.
Quote:
I personally knew one college professor who taught a very popular course in Foundations of Education. His summer classes sometimes met at a local bar. Once he had them attend an art class where the art students were sketching a nude model. I also knew the local assistant superintendent who told me the district was upset they had to keep paying for these courses, but there was nothing they could do about it.
spend your education dollar more wisely? dunno what to say about that. I have never taken or given any course at a bar. In fact, I dont see that as a plus.
btw - there are generally no more 'old teachers' if the student years are at age 22-23, and they put in their 30, they are generally done at age 53 just by simple math. most districts - at least in pa - bend the rules as much as they can to force the old out, the new in.
That may depend on where you are. Your location, until recently, generally had a surplus of teachers so there wasn't any reason to get another discipline such as SPED.
Where there are chronic shortages, such as many school systems in Maryland, many advocated getting another discipline and would sweeten the deal with specialty pay. My system also put a big push on getting the Administration certification because it was looking down the road at shortages. Now, that's what I did but I never had any intention of becoming an administrator for a number of personal and professional reasons.
As far as school systems paying for those grad credits, yes they do. In theory. My particular one would run out of money for them at 8:05AM on July 1st so if you weren't in line at 6AM you didn't get reimbursement, which typically covered 1/3 or less of the actual cost.
My youngest daughter is currently getting her Master's in Euro History. Many of her, mine and Mrs. NBP's colleagues (or in the latter two cases, former colleagues) are getting their Master's in Library and Information Media due to decades long shortages of school Librarians here. That's been ongoing for close to twenty years.
You mention special education, which is a good example. My understanding in PA is if a current teacher wanted to pick up an additional certification in special education, they would have to student teach again. My understanding is that applies to several other certifications such as reading specialist and physical education. Is that similar in other states?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RetireinPA
In other words you took the in service days getting to sit alone. since you do not have a PDE record, there was nothing to add for you AND many teachers take additional praxxis at this time - which you would not
So many errors in your response. I have a PPID. I'm a certified teacher. The test is the Praxis. I need to get Act 48 continuing education credits to keep my teaching license active.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
