Political messages at school

[Mickey'snewestfan]

I'd probably not be happy with the one-sidedness of the issue.

But I don think that the schools should be teaching critical thinking skills and how to evaluate information sources.

I'm fine with them assigning controversial political issues as a topic for research and writing. The kids should be able to research an issue, express their viewpoint and bolster their positions with credible information sources. They shouldn't be graded on their positions, but on how they present them.

I'm faculty at a university and it's disheartening to see how many students cannot evaluate information.

Is that I do think or I don't think? I'm guessing it's that you do, but the first time I read it as I don't, and was ready to jump in and argue with you.

 

[LuvOrlando]

You're kidding, I didn't know that.

OK, sarcasm aside, to me that's not an argument. I want to hear an argument that explains why you think the Constitution is correct on this point and shouldn't be changed.

I don't view the constitution as like the Bible. I don't think the people who wrote it had some kind of divine foresight which allowed them to foresee that Washington DC would grow into a city with as many people as it has, who pay large amounts of taxes, at the same rate as the rest of the nation, and would not be afforded equal rights and representation in the government that spent those taxes.

I understand what the constitution says, and that it currently does say that we don't have voting rights -- it used to say that slaves are fractional people. What I want to hear is an argument that explains why it's OK for such a large number of tax paying American citizens to not have representation, and that it's in keeping with the spirit of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, and that therefore they want their legally elected representatives to continue to actively oppose a Constitutional Amendment.

No sarcasm, I was brief because it's not an argument, it's a fact. Because Washington DC is not part of a State it's residents are not afforded the right to vote. Because DC is not affiliated with a State the entity is not affiliated with any Electoral College votes, since our electoral process isn't by popular vote and the Electoral College isn't even bound to the popular vote it doesn't make sense why the people there would even want to vote.

I don't think it needs to be explained why it is in the countries best interest that the Capital NOT be affiliated with a particular State.

I think the more interesting question is why on earth a person would choose to live in an area that isn't allowed to vote if he or she actually did want to enjoy that privilege?

 

[DawnCt1]

No sarcasm, I was brief because it's not an argument, it's a fact. Because Washington DC is not part of a State it's residents are not afforded the right to vote. Because DC is not affiliated with a State the entity is not affiliated with any Electoral College votes, since our electoral process isn't by popular vote and the Electoral College isn't even bound to the popular vote it doesn't make sense why the people there would even want to vote.

I don't think it needs to be explained why it is in the countries best interest that the Capital NOT be affiliated with a particular State.

I think the more interesting question is why on earth a person would choose to live in an area that isn't allowed to vote if he or she actually did want to enjoy that privilege?

Very well put. And back to the OP premise, that it "isn't controversial". It sounds like enough of the faculty and students support the idea, that to express another opinion, might be met with hostility. I can't imagine that a fifth grader would feel comfortable stating that he didn't agree with the class.

 

[DancingBear]

No sarcasm, I was brief because it's not an argument, it's a fact. Because Washington DC is not part of a State it's residents are not afforded the right to vote.

That would have been true in the past as to women and blacks also. The OP is aware of the fact and is asking for an argument.

Because DC is not affiliated with a State the entity is not affiliated with any Electoral College votes, since our electoral process isn't by popular vote and the Electoral College isn't even bound to the popular vote it doesn't make sense why the people there would even want to vote.

Huh? DC is represented in the Electoral College, thanks to the 23rd amendment.

I don't think it needs to be explained why it is in the countries best interest that the Capital NOT be affiliated with a particular State.

DC is not seeking to be affiliated with a particular state. I don't think it's self-obvious why they should not have one voting member of Congress.

 

[LuvOrlando]

That would have been true in the past as to women and blacks also. The OP is aware of the fact and is asking for an argument.

Huh? DC is represented in the Electoral College, thanks to the 23rd amendment.

DC is not seeking to be affiliated with a particular state. I don't think it's self-obvious why they should not have one voting member of Congress.

OK then, I didn't realize they were actually granted Electoral College votes, thought it was more theoretical. Then again the whole Electoral College thing is so shrouded in secrecy that I'm not exactly surprised I didn't know. I knew the Electoral College didn't have to follow the popular vote but the fact that they don't even have to take a poll to see how people would vote if they could vote is a bit... well off. Frankly I'm a bit confused over how they even justified the actual placement of Electoral College votes being they aren't even pretend accountable to anyone by any stretch of the imagination. Live and learn.

I do, however still think it is self evident why the Capital should not be affiliated with a State. Wouldn't there be some pretty extraordinary conflicts of interest there? I think it is best that the most powerful territory in the union is marginalized by having no vested interest in the outcome of the 3 branches deliberations.

Out of curiosity, how is the tax structure there? If there is no State do they get away with only paying Fed and local municipal taxes? Do the politicians get a reduced tax rate by claiming they spend more than 50% of their time there? HMMMM, there must be something to it. I am a firm believer nothing happens unless it benefits someone, find the gravy and you'll find the answer.

 

[NotUrsula]

Then again the whole Electoral College thing is so shrouded in secrecy that I'm not exactly surprised I didn't know.

No, it really isn't. The only thing a bit mysterious is the process of deciding who each states' delegates will be, but that is normally set in each state's Constitution. The process is managed by the National Archives and Records Administration, and they have a nice explanation on their website.

What makes the US Constitution special is that it is a "Living Document" -- in that it is designed in a way that facilitates change but makes change difficult enough not to be undertaken lightly.

In re: the issue of legislative representation/suffrage for DC residents, what I think it really comes down to is that the Founding Fathers never expected air-conditioning and the eradication of malaria. In their era the number of people who lived in DC year-round was miniscule, because in July and August the heat and the mosquitoes made the place nearly unbearable to live in. I don't think that anyone in the late 17th century would have imagined that nearly 600K people would one day live there year-round. I also don't think that they realized how necessary it would one day be for the Federal Govt to take on certain issues that they might have thought were local, and which were local, until advances in communications, transportation and commerce made them national.

In this particular instance, I can see why the school accepted a one-sided campaign -- it's bizarrely un-American in this day and age to actually deny suffrage to a citizen. However, for the children to have actually learned something useful from the experience (other than learning that DC does NOT have a voting voice in Congress), they should have been made to look at and consider both sides or the issue. ANY time you talk about the political process in an educational context, that needs to be done. (I am continually appalled when I hear high-school and college students proclaim that majority rules in this country. )

 

[DancingBear]

I do, however still think it is self evident why the Capital should not be affiliated with a State. Wouldn't there be some pretty extraordinary conflicts of interest there?

I don't see any particular conflicts of interest that would arise from DC having one vote in the House of Representatives. The Congress has DC City government under its thumb, this particular issue doesn't change that.

I think it is best that the most powerful territory in the union is marginalized by having no vested interest in the outcome of the 3 branches deliberations.

I don't know what you think makes the District of Columbia itself so powerful. In any event, District residents already have the same rights with respect to the executive and judicial branches as everyone else does (except they have no Senators to advise and consent to judicial appointments).

Out of curiosity, how is the tax structure there? If there is no State do they get away with only paying Fed and local municipal taxes? Do the politicians get a reduced tax rate by claiming they spend more than 50% of their time there? HMMMM, there must be something to it. I am a firm believer nothing happens unless it benefits someone, find the gravy and you'll find the answer.

The reason the Constitution did not give the District congressional voting rights doesn't really have anything to do with taxes. District residents have no particular advantage in taxation, and they have a lousy school system and largely disfunctional city government to pay for. They pay District income taxes as well as property taxes (and of course sales taxes).

According to this the DC state/local tax burden is comparatively high (tied for 8th highest among states):
http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/10/pf/taxes/state_tax_rates/index.htm

 

[DancingBear]

Just to be clear, this isn't about my child being exposed to an alternative point of view -- I share the same point of view as the teachers and everyone else, which was the only point of view that was offered in the classroom, the only point of view for which they brought home bumper stickers. While I would have no problem taking him to a rally for this cause, or whatever, I feel like it's my job to politically indoctrinate him not the school's.

To be more clear -- he's in 5th grade. The issue is DC voting rights. They studied other suffrage movements (the American Revolution, civil rights, women's suffrage) and then they studied this. I can't explain to him the opposing point of view because I don't get it AT ALL (if someone here can explain it to me, please do because I don't really understand how someone can be OK with a large number of American citizens not having representation in Congress).

You said the point of the lesson was to learn about political advocacy--how citizens express themselves to the powers-that-be to bring about change. It wasn't a lesson about political opinions and issues in general. For example, when they studied women's suffrage, they were showing how women organized themselves and made themselves heard and brought about the 19th amendment. I doubt they spent much time studying the arguments in favor of denying women the vote.

 

[Mickey'snewestfan]

Out of curiosity, how is the tax structure there? If there is no State do they get away with only paying Fed and local municipal taxes? Do the politicians get a reduced tax rate by claiming they spend more than 50% of their time there? HMMMM, there must be something to it. I am a firm believer nothing happens unless it benefits someone, find the gravy and you'll find the answer.

Yes, we pay just Fed and municipal taxes (we don't usually refer to them that way). However, since our local government has financial responsibilities that elsewhere are held by state, our municipal taxes are as high or higher than most states. Since most of our major employers are either government or tax exempt (Universities, non-profits, etc . . . ) and don't pay property or income tax, we also need to make up for that income through increased taxes.

As far as politicians, they and certain kinds of government workers are allowed to "keep" their old state of residence, and vote and pay taxes there -- further reducing the amount of money we get.

As far as who it benefits -- right now it benefits the Republicans. If DC had the vote, there's no question we'd vote Democratic.

 

[Mickey'snewestfan]

OK then, I didn't realize they were actually granted Electoral College votes, thought it was more theoretical. Then again the whole Electoral College thing is so shrouded in secrecy that I'm not exactly surprised I didn't know. I knew the Electoral College didn't have to follow the popular vote but the fact that they don't even have to take a poll to see how people would vote if they could vote is a bit... well off. Frankly I'm a bit confused over how they even justified the actual placement of Electoral College votes being they aren't even pretend accountable to anyone by any stretch of the imagination. Live and learn.

I do, however still think it is self evident why the Capital should not be affiliated with a State. Wouldn't there be some pretty extraordinary conflicts of interest there? I think it is best that the most powerful territory in the union is marginalized by having no vested interest in the outcome of the 3 branches deliberations.

Out of curiosity, how is the tax structure there? If there is no State do they get away with only paying Fed and local municipal taxes? Do the politicians get a reduced tax rate by claiming they spend more than 50% of their time there? HMMMM, there must be something to it. I am a firm believer nothing happens unless it benefits someone, find the gravy and you'll find the answer.

OK, we've detoured from my OP, but I just have to say that this post pretty much exemplifies what's so wrong with the situation.

You, and most of American don't know that the constitution has been changed to allow us to vote for President (and the country did not stop functioning), don't know that we pay equal or more taxes, don't know that most of the political elite vote, and would continue to vote in the home jurisdictions (the irony that you think it's the "powerful" who are being denied the vote is incredible -- it's regular people like me, police officers, fire fighters, janitors, crossing guards etc . . . who we're talking about, oh and a few thousand lawyers).

And yet, you get to elect members to Congress who in turn get to decide how my local government functions.

 

[LuvOrlando]

Going back to the OP, this is why these conversations are best limited to non issues in elementary school

No, it really isn't. The only thing a bit mysterious is the process of deciding who each states' delegates will be, but that is normally set in each state's Constitution. The process is managed by the National Archives and Records Administration, and they have a nice explanation on their website.

)

If it's so easy I would like to invite you compile a list of every person in that Electoral College with a blip saying how they got there & how long they've been serving from each and every state. I've tried many times and got lost in all the gauze but if you've cracked the code then, by all means, please share because I couldn't do it. I am not at all being sarcastic either, rather I am humbled by the sophistication of it all. I really want that list because I think those people should be held under a microscope since many are free to make their selections at will, but it's hard to get someone under a microscope if you don't know who they all are.

If its easy it shouldn't be hard right? I would love a list of who voted in 2008. I am very curious what sorts of job histories each member has why and how they got in, were they voted in & if so who got to vote? For such an important function I think they are woefully lacking with regard to media coverage which I also have always found to be a bit unusual.

 

[NotUrsula]

If it's so easy I would like to invite you compile a list of every person in that Electoral College with a blip saying how they got there & how long they've been serving from each and every state. I've tried many times and got lost in all the gauze but if you've cracked the code then, by all means, please share because I couldn't do it. I am not at all being sarcastic either, rather I am humbled by the sophistication of it all. I really want that list because I think those people should be held under a microscope since many are free to make their selections at will, but it's hard to get someone under a microscope if you don't know who they all are.

If its easy it shouldn't be hard right?

It isn't hard, time-consuming, yes, but not really difficult. The ENTIRE list of electors, in some cases including their home addresses, is available on the NARA website, here: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2008/certificates-of-ascertainment.html

The governor of each state (plus the Mayor for DC) must file a Certificate of Ascertainment with NARA before the College meets. NARA posts the certificates on their website these days. In addition, almost all of the states post a separate list along with information about the selection process in that state. Those links are here: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/state_links.html

Once you know the Elector's name, state, and party affiliation, it is a simple matter to ask that party's state chairman's office for the electors' CVs. I doubt that there are any that would turn you down, especially if you live in the state. Would it take some effort? Yes, but if you really want to know, 200 or so form emails shouldn't be too great a commitment.

As to electors changing their vote, that is almost as rare as hen's teeth. Electors who change their vote (which can only have any real effect in two states in any case: Nebraska and Maine, which allow proportional voting) are known as "faithless Electors" and there have only been 16 of them in the last 100 years. Being chosen as an elector is a political plum; those who are chosen tend to be VERY loyal party officials or elected state legislators who are put up for it by the party machinery in their states. Most of the time when an Elector changes a vote, it is because the candidate that he or she was pledged to has died, but occasionally it is done to make a political statement. If you do that, it is almost always a career-ender, and you go down in history for it. Not many people have the stomach to sacrifice power and end a career that way. (Ironically for this discussion, the last person to do it was an Elector from DC in 2000, who abstained from the vote in order to draw attention to DC's lack of a Congressional vote.)

With 48 states going winner-take-all, faithless Electors have no real power these days. In recent decades electors have only done it as a symbolic gesture when it was clear that their vote was not going to be any kind of tie-breaker.

EDITED to say: It occurred to me overnight that this response might be construed as veering too far into a discussion of politics. I didn't intend it that way, more as straight civics, but Mods, if you think it strays too far into dangerous territory, please go ahead and delete it.

 

[LuvOrlando]

WOW, I'm impressed. Thanks for that! I know what I'll be reading through for the next few days.

 

[Pigeon]

Is that I do think or I don't think? I'm guessing it's that you do, but the first time I read it as I don't, and was ready to jump in and argue with you.

Sorry for the typo. I do think they should teach critical thinking skills. And I think using controversial topics is just fine.

I have no problems with my kids taking positions that are contrary from mine, political or otherwise. That's part of growing up.

I attended a conservative Catholic elementary school more than 40 years ago, and we had to write position papers on topics like abortion, the Vietnam war and marijuana. I'm sure I gave the nuns (and my parents) heartburn, but I never took the party line on any of these issues. To their credit, if I wrote a good paper and backed up my arguments, the nuns gave me a good grade on the paper. That's as it should be.