Texas Republicans propose State Electoral college

[The Rich Port]

Ah yes because that's what the people need, is LESS REPRESENTATION.

Fuck it, why don't we just go back to voting weight according to wealth while we're at it, like the good old days.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Ah yes because that's what the people need, is LESS REPRESENTATION.

Fuck it, why don't we just go back to voting weight according to wealth while we're at it, like the good old days.

Wealth? What a terrible idea. Weight the vote according to weight!

We'll have no more of that public health advisory about "obesity" (what a hoax!), no taxes on soda, and none of that nonsense about air passengers being charged double because they have to put the armrest up!

Also we'll get fewer objections about 12 year olds being allowed to vote.

XXVIII: The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen pounds of weight or over, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of weight.

[Region of Dwipantara]

Private and Public?

From my heart: Private schools should be banned.
From my head: Private schools are allowed, but per student get public funding. Fees are not allowed.

Parent funding is necessarily local funding. It's contrary to the principle I am espousing, that each student should be funded according to their need (includes disabilities of various sorts, also home situation). Regardless of where in the country they live.

I do have concerns that schools deprived of that local link to funding, may slack off. The worse they educate children, the more funding they (on behalf of children) will get. My "tax nationally, spend locally" model does need some tweaking. But there are always the elected School Boards, they may serve to minimize such corruption in how the federal money is spent. Providing of course that only parents are eligible to vote for School Board.

Also, won't banning private school would led to massive increases in private tutors and cramschools? The most prestigious university in my country, ITB, traditionally put a giant banner saying "WELCOME THE BEST SONS AND DAUGHTERS OF INDONESIA" on the gate in every admission period. But displeased trolls recognized the inherent problem, and protested by placing a competing giant banner saying "WELCOME THE BEST SONS AND DAUGHTERS OF CRAMSCHOOLS" in the vicinity. The inequality got really bad that the state has to intervene and mess with the admission system.

Ah yes because that's what the people need, is LESS REPRESENTATION.

Fuck it, why don't we just go back to voting weight according to wealth while we're at it, like the good old days.

Meaning that the US will be turned into a technocratic NWO dictatorship run by Big Tech overlords that will get us to Mars? Sign me up.

[La Xinga]

Private and Public?

From my heart: Private schools should be banned.
From my head: Private schools are allowed, but per student get public funding. Fees are not allowed.

Parent funding is necessarily local funding. It's contrary to the principle I am espousing, that each student should be funded according to their need (includes disabilities of various sorts, also home situation). Regardless of where in the country they live.

I do have concerns that schools deprived of that local link to funding, may slack off. The worse they educate children, the more funding they (on behalf of children) will get. My "tax nationally, spend locally" model does need some tweaking. But there are always the elected School Boards, they may serve to minimize such corruption in how the federal money is spent. Providing of course that only parents are eligible to vote for School Board.

Okay then..........

[Nobel Hobos 2]

From my heart: Private schools should be banned.
From my head: Private schools are allowed, but per student get public funding. Fees are not allowed.

Parent funding is necessarily local funding. It's contrary to the principle I am espousing, that each student should be funded according to their need (includes disabilities of various sorts, also home situation). Regardless of where in the country they live.

I do have concerns that schools deprived of that local link to funding, may slack off. The worse they educate children, the more funding they (on behalf of children) will get. My "tax nationally, spend locally" model does need some tweaking. But there are always the elected School Boards, they may serve to minimize such corruption in how the federal money is spent. Providing of course that only parents are eligible to vote for School Board.

Also, won't banning private school would led to massive increases in private tutors and cramschools? The most prestigious university in my country, ITB, traditionally put a giant banner saying "WELCOME THE BEST SONS AND DAUGHTERS OF INDONESIA" on the gate in every admission period. But displeased trolls recognized the inherent problem, and protested by placing a competing giant banner saying "WELCOME THE BEST SONS AND DAUGHTERS OF CRAMSCHOOLS" in the vicinity. The inequality got really bad that the state has to intervene and mess with the admission system.

That points to a pathology of the system which I don't yet have a solution to. Some parents will push their kids to get as good marks as possible (tutors and cramschools being part of that), in the knowledge or belief that good marks at graduation will get them into the hardest courses at university (also tending to be the most expensive, since they're long) and set them up for a lucrative career.

Well everyone should have the option to go to college: that should be part of the solution. But we really can't expect the top unis to take young people by lottery and regardless of academic performance (or self promotion, eg essays about how much they really want to be a doctor for instance).

Other than imploring parents not ever to push their kid (giving them a career advantage over kids whose parents didn't), and putting more effort into young adult training for those kids who aren't ever going to be business people or technicians ... I will just say this. Private tutoring of after-hours schooling is actually not a bad thing, if it's used for the kids who need it just to keep up with the class. It's the use of it for average kids to get top marks, or actually talented kids to get further ahead of all the others, which is problematic.

[Grinning Dragon]

Also, won't banning private school would led to massive increases in private tutors and cramschools? The most prestigious university in my country, ITB, traditionally put a giant banner saying "WELCOME THE BEST SONS AND DAUGHTERS OF INDONESIA" on the gate in every admission period. But displeased trolls recognized the inherent problem, and protested by placing a competing giant banner saying "WELCOME THE BEST SONS AND DAUGHTERS OF CRAMSCHOOLS" in the vicinity. The inequality got really bad that the state has to intervene and mess with the admission system.

That points to a pathology of the system which I don't yet have a solution to. Some parents will push their kids to get as good marks as possible (tutors and cramschools being part of that), in the knowledge or belief that good marks at graduation will get them into the hardest courses at university (also tending to be the most expensive, since they're long) and set them up for a lucrative career.

Well everyone should have the option to go to college: that should be part of the solution. But we really can't expect the top unis to take young people by lottery and regardless of academic performance (or self promotion, eg essays about how much they really want to be a doctor for instance).

Other than imploring parents not ever to push their kid (giving them a career advantage over kids whose parents didn't), and putting more effort into young adult training for those kids who aren't ever going to be business people or technicians ... I will just say this. Private tutoring of after-hours schooling is actually not a bad thing, if it's used for the kids who need it just to keep up with the class. It's the use of it for average kids to get top marks, or actually talented kids to get further ahead of all the others, which is problematic.

Wait. How is working hard and getting further ahead a problem here? It isn't. One cannot guarantee equal outcome, one can only guarantee equal opportunity.
We've put our kids through private school, because quite frankly, the public schools around here are shit academically.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

That points to a pathology of the system which I don't yet have a solution to. Some parents will push their kids to get as good marks as possible (tutors and cramschools being part of that), in the knowledge or belief that good marks at graduation will get them into the hardest courses at university (also tending to be the most expensive, since they're long) and set them up for a lucrative career.

Well everyone should have the option to go to college: that should be part of the solution. But we really can't expect the top unis to take young people by lottery and regardless of academic performance (or self promotion, eg essays about how much they really want to be a doctor for instance).

Other than imploring parents not ever to push their kid (giving them a career advantage over kids whose parents didn't), and putting more effort into young adult training for those kids who aren't ever going to be business people or technicians ... I will just say this. Private tutoring of after-hours schooling is actually not a bad thing, if it's used for the kids who need it just to keep up with the class. It's the use of it for average kids to get top marks, or actually talented kids to get further ahead of all the others, which is problematic.

Wait. How is working hard and getting further ahead a problem here? It isn't. One cannot guarantee equal outcome, one can only guarantee equal opportunity.

Children do not have equal opportunity, and it's not even possible to "guarantee" that using only school. Because different children have different parents.

We've put our kids through private school, because quite frankly, the public schools around here are shit academically.

You can't or won't move to a better area, but you also won't subject your kid to the inferior education available where you are. So you're doing the best for your kid, there's nothing wrong with that.

If you really believe in equal opportunity though, you'd want for all the other kids at the public school to have the opportunity your child has. That means improving the local school, and that means spending money.

You actually don't believe in equal opportunity for all children ... do you?

[Grinning Dragon]

Wait. How is working hard and getting further ahead a problem here? It isn't. One cannot guarantee equal outcome, one can only guarantee equal opportunity.

Children do not have equal opportunity, and it's not even possible to "guarantee" that using only school. Because different children have different parents.

We've put our kids through private school, because quite frankly, the public schools around here are shit academically.

You can't or won't move to a better area, but you also won't subject your kid to the inferior education available where you are. So you're doing the best for your kid, there's nothing wrong with that.

If you really believe in equal opportunity though, you'd want for all the other kids at the public school to have the opportunity your child has. That means improving the local school, and that means spending money.

You actually don't believe in equal opportunity for all children ... do you?

The opportunity is there for all school aged children, it all boils down to how much of a sacrifice a parent is willing to ensure that child has a quality education. I'd live in a cardboard box if it meant my kids would have a quality education. However that wasn't necessary as we sacrificed earlier in our lives before having children to ensure they could have a quality education.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Children do not have equal opportunity, and it's not even possible to "guarantee" that using only school. Because different children have different parents.



You can't or won't move to a better area, but you also won't subject your kid to the inferior education available where you are. So you're doing the best for your kid, there's nothing wrong with that.

If you really believe in equal opportunity though, you'd want for all the other kids at the public school to have the opportunity your child has. That means improving the local school, and that means spending money.

You actually don't believe in equal opportunity for all children ... do you?

The opportunity is there for all school aged children, it all boils down to how much of a sacrifice a parent is willing to ensure that child has a quality education.

"It all boils down to" something the child has no control over whatsoever. The quality of parent(s) they have.

That is NOT equal opportunity.

I'd live in a cardboard box if it meant my kids would have a quality education. However that wasn't necessary as we sacrificed earlier in our lives before having children to ensure they could have a quality education.

Well good for you. You are avoiding strenously the question I raised: do you genuinely believe in providing equal opportunity for all children?

[Libertarians]

The logic behind an electoral college system would only make sense if the state was a federation of separate counties formed together to operate as a state. It isn't, the state is the primary governmental unit which all other governments derive their power (even the federal government).

Funnily enough the first link OP provided doesn't even say what he says it does? I have a feeling this is something proposed by a couple strange folks going nowhere, which can be used to to write a not-technically-inaccurate article making it seem like there's anything like this really being attempted. All you can do in a thread like this is condemn those partisan enough to think this is a good idea, and those partisan enough to think this is really happening or worth a thread.

[Grinning Dragon]

The opportunity is there for all school aged children, it all boils down to how much of a sacrifice a parent is willing to ensure that child has a quality education.

"It all boils down to" something the child has no control over whatsoever. The quality of parent(s) they have.

That is NOT equal opportunity.

I'd live in a cardboard box if it meant my kids would have a quality education. However that wasn't necessary as we sacrificed earlier in our lives before having children to ensure they could have a quality education.

Well good for you. You are avoiding strenuously the question I raised: do you genuinely believe in providing equal opportunity for all children?

I did answer, equal opportunity already exists, it's there for those who take advantage of that opportunity.
With that said, perhaps a separate discussion as this is about a state EC.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

"It all boils down to" something the child has no control over whatsoever. The quality of parent(s) they have.

That is NOT equal opportunity.



Well good for you. You are avoiding strenuously the question I raised: do you genuinely believe in providing equal opportunity for all children?

I did answer, equal opportunity already exists, it's there for those who take advantage of that opportunity.
With that said, perhaps a separate discussion as this is about a state EC.

Equal opportunity exists for those whose parents make it available to them. And not to other kids, who do not get equal opportunity.

I've said it three times now, if you're still not getting the point the problem would be at your end.

[San Lumen]

Wait.....Are they are trying to undermine the support of the people!

They want a way they can win without having to get the most votes

[Fahran]

The solution to that problem is to have zero local funding of schools. Only state funding, or even better federal funding.

And then who ever controls the education department at the state level will implement policies that represent the interests of their particular regional, racial, and socioeconomic group, especially in a state like Texas. Funding is one problem among many but I definitely disagree with local funding for the reasons previously stated.

[San Lumen]

The solution to that problem is to have zero local funding of schools. Only state funding, or even better federal funding.

And then who ever controls the education department at the state level will implement policies that represent the interests of their particular regional, racial, and socioeconomic group, especially in a state like Texas. Funding is one problem among many but I definitely disagree with local funding for the reasons previously stated.

Whomever is elected governor should get to pick who they want for education

[Fahran]

Whomever is elected governor should get to pick who they want for education

That's what happens at the moment, though the Texas Education Agency is more bureaucratic than that suggests. The issue is that you might want a governor from one party and an education commissioner from another. I specifically vote Republican or third-party for governor and then vote for moderate Republicans or moderate Democrats for the State Board of Education, largely because they actually accept scientific consensus. Your brand of political infrastructure seems to limit us to party politics as opposed to interest or policy oriented politics.

[San Lumen]

Whomever is elected governor should get to pick who they want for education

That's what happens at the moment, though the Texas Education Agency is more bureaucratic than that suggests. The issue is that you might want a governor from one party and an education commissioner from another. I specifically vote Republican or third-party for governor and then vote for moderate Republicans or moderate Democrats for the State Board of Education, largely because they actually accept scientific consensus. Your brand of political infrastructure seems to limit us to party politics as opposed to interest or policy oriented politics.

Few states elect a education commissioner

[Outer Acharet]

Why would a state need an electoral college? The reason America has it in the first place is so less-populous states get represented to ensure that politicians spread out their campaigning and don't entirely cater to the states with large enough populations to beat out the smaller ones, which matters on the large scale because the issues that cater to high-population states are completely different from the ones that cater to rural states, and states have large enough populations either way that a significant number of people aren't represented without the EC.

It makes no sense unless you think that your state has cities taking up too much of the representation. And in Texas... the cities all go blue and almost the rest of the state goes red... and it's still about a fifty/fifty split...

Yeah, I can see why that might rustle a Republican's jimmies, especially now that the sitting POTUS has quite literally insinuated it's OK to tamper with the election system (mail-in voting is corrupt unless it agrees with me) to stack the books in their favor. That sets an ugly precedent.

[Genivaria]

Whomever is elected governor should get to pick who they want for education

That's what happens at the moment, though the Texas Education Agency is more bureaucratic than that suggests. The issue is that you might want a governor from one party and an education commissioner from another. I specifically vote Republican or third-party for governor and then vote for moderate Republicans or moderate Democrats for the State Board of Education, largely because they actually accept scientific consensus. Your brand of political infrastructure seems to limit us to party politics as opposed to interest or policy oriented politics.

Wouldn't it make more sense for the local school boards or something similar to nominate someone?
We shouldn't be politicizing positions that should go to experts in their field.

[San Lumen]

That's what happens at the moment, though the Texas Education Agency is more bureaucratic than that suggests. The issue is that you might want a governor from one party and an education commissioner from another. I specifically vote Republican or third-party for governor and then vote for moderate Republicans or moderate Democrats for the State Board of Education, largely because they actually accept scientific consensus. Your brand of political infrastructure seems to limit us to party politics as opposed to interest or policy oriented politics.

Wouldn't it make more sense for the local school boards or something similar to nominate someone?
We shouldn't be politicizing positions that should go to experts in their field.

Experts in their field are who get picked and the state senate confirms them

[Fahran]

Few states elect a education commissioner

That's not really a strong argument that we shouldn't elect one directly or even have one appointed via bureaucratic mechanism. It allows citizens to split the executive between disparate political faction or transforms the office from a partisan appointment to a potentially neutral and professional appointment.

[Fahran]

Experts in their field are who get picked and the state senate confirms them

Mike Morath isn't what I'd call an expert in the field of education. The majority of his career was spent in the development of software. He ran unopposed to become a trustee in 2011 and was then appointed by Governor Abbott to run the TEA in 2015. He's chronically incompetent when it comes to managing the TEA's finances and Texas deserves better with regard to how we educate our children. A Democrat isn't going to win a gubernatorial election down here until the Texas Democratic Party moderates on issues like firearms and I'd rather not be forced to choose between electing a Northam copy cat and continuing to have poor educational policies in place.

[San Lumen]

Experts in their field are who get picked and the state senate confirms them

Mike Morath isn't what I'd call an expert in the field of education. The majority of his career was spent in the development of software. He ran unopposed to become a trustee in 2011 and was then appointed by Governor Abbott to run the TEA in 2015. He's chronically incompetent when it comes to managing the TEA's finances and Texas deserves better with regard to how we educate our children. A Democrat isn't going to win a gubernatorial election down here until the Texas Democratic Party moderates on issues like firearms and I'd rather not be forced to choose between electing a Northam copy cat and continuing to have poor educational policies in place.

If that’s the case why propose this?

They are afraid of urban areas soon outvoting their rural base

[Fahran]

If that’s the case why propose this?

They are afraid of urban areas soon outvoting their rural base

That's not likely to happen for another decade or two. Houston and Dallas-FW aren't growing nearly that fast. Austin is the main progressive hub that's growing but smaller municipalities like Conroe that lean conservative are growing at a faster rate. I don't see Democrats making much headway except in North Houston and a few middle districts in Dallas. Abbott handily won elections fairly recently against popular Democrats. And a Democratic Lieutenant Governor won't have an impact without taking the Senate as well.

[San Lumen]

If that’s the case why propose this?

They are afraid of urban areas soon outvoting their rural base

That's not likely to happen for another decade or two. Houston and Dallas-FW aren't growing nearly that fast. Austin is the main progressive hub that's growing but smaller municipalities like Conroe that lean conservative are growing at a faster rate. I don't see Democrats making much headway except in North Houston and a few middle districts in Dallas. Abbott handily won elections fairly recently against popular Democrats. And a Democratic Lieutenant Governor won't have an impact without taking the Senate as well.

Then why propose this if it will take that long?