Conference back40::soapbox

    
    On requiring no-nonsense statements of position from candidates,
    I certainly agree, particularly for challengers.  Incumbents will
    be judged on their records.  If we get term limits (dunno yet), this
    will become even more important.
    
    Ah, Civics !  We had it when I was in High School way back (late 50's-
    early 60's).  I had to memorize that money bills originated in the
    House, confirmations went only to the Senate.  Actually, it was a
    good course.  But as an adolescent, I didn't know it.
    
    Today you can't have a test for voting.  It would be viewed as a
    curtailment of 'liberties', I suppose, and it probably is.
    
    Hey, but no problem !  In the prm, the ballot itself is now the
    intelligence test.  We make them so incomprehensible, the dummies
    cancel out each other's votes by misreading the instructions.
    
      bb

    I agree wholeheartedly with the idea of a "citizenship" class.  I think
    it is sorely needed. As for the statement of position, I for one don't
    think candidates should have an "agenda".  As a representative
    republic, officeholders are supposed to represent the views and
    opinions of their constituents. All too often in today's political
    arena, elected representatives perceive getting elected to mean a
    mandate from voters.  How many times has your representative in
    Congress/Senate, state house, etc. sought your opinion on pending
    legislation?? We constantly hear, "Contact your representative and let
    them know how you feel". I was always under the impression that it
    should be the other way around--THEY SHOULD CONTACT US!!! The short
    attention span of voters, combined with the slick television ads by
    candidates, leads to little accountability. Of course, as the basenoter
    stated, we have only ourselves to blame.  
    
    Marty
    
    P.S.-- Here's a different idea--Set a limit on how much money can be
    spent on a campaign (and set that limit as low as possible).  

  I'm not sure where you guys went to school, but when I was a kid we always
had a class called "Social Studies" or "Civics" and we covered government. 

  As with most highschool classes, the "smart kids" figured out what the
teacher wanted to hear, wrote it on the test, got A's, then forgot everything
they learned and went on to the next test. The "stupid kids" just horsed around
and never even knew what the teacher was talking about nor did they care.

  In theory it's a nice idea, but in practice I doubt this course would make
much of a difference. And when you factor in the inevitable bias of the teacher
one way or the other it's even more unlikely that the kids would be taught to
think for themselves. 

  I say stick to the basics. Teach kids how to read then let them figure out
who to vote for themselves.

  George

>  As with most highschool classes, the "smart kids" figured out what the
>teacher wanted to hear, wrote it on the test, got A's, then forgot everything
>they learned and went on to the next test. The "stupid kids" just horsed around
>and never even knew what the teacher was talking about nor did they care.

    	This says more about the public education system than anything 
    	else.
    
>  I say stick to the basics. Teach kids how to read then let them figure out
>who to vote for themselves.

    	I agree.

                      <<< Note 94.3 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

Yeah, we had those classes in HS, like I said in the base note, but they
addressed the fed government almost exclusively. Local and state 
government, elections, referendums, town meetings, etc. weren't covered at
all. What civics we got was covered in one class, during one year (can't
remember which). And they didn't make current elections a springboard to
understanding the process. 

Given such cursory treatment in our education system, is it any wonder that 
OVER HALF of the graduates we churn out don't bother to vote?

I think that's why extremists at both end of the political spectrum have 
influence far in excess of their propotionate numbers. They will always 
have a bit more influence because they are almost by definition louder and 
more politically active, but these days they seem to be controlling the 
debate, and that's not good. This tension between polar extremes also has 
helped to replace character assasination for issues in typical campaigns.

Re .1 (or was it .2?) 

I disagree that representatives are supposed to be pure conduits of the
people they represent. If you want government by polls, then you should be
quite content with the way things are. It's inefficient and ultimately self
defeating.  What we need  are reperesentatives who have ideas and
principles we *know and understand*, who can respond and function in a
dynamic environment -- which is to say who are smart and can think on their
own. If they've been honest in the Application for Candidacy, they won't do
anything that would be too surprising. If they do, we can hold them
accountable. 

Tom

re: .2
    
 >   I agree wholeheartedly with the idea of a "citizenship" class.  I think
 >   it is sorely needed. As for the statement of position, I for one don't
 >   think candidates should have an "agenda".  As a representative
 >   republic, officeholders are supposed to represent the views and
 >   opinions of their constituents. All too often in today's political
    
    OK, but you got 50% on your first test. That's an F where I went to
    school.  In a representative republic those elected are expected to
    vote based on *their* knowledge and experience. They are *not* expected
    automatically to reflect the views of their consitutents. They are
    constrained by the fact that they came from among the people and likely
    share many of the people's views and must be elected and reelected by
    the people. 
    
    The founders addressed this issue repeatedly, and would be horrified to
    hear your one-sided analysis of their responsibilities. The
    conservative British parliamentarian Edmund Burke was a particulary
    articulate definer of this concept.
    
    Study up.
    
    These suggestions are just re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
    Level the playing field by cutting down on the money required to run
    and by requiring widespread public debate (i.e., substantial TV time --
    those few of us who read newspapers already know what the candidates
    stand for. And, no, I don't mean USA Today or the Daily Oklahoman).

	I have to put in my opinion.  

	We don't need Civics classes to inform the masses about government.  
These should NOT be mandatory.  The biggest problem with them is that often,
the teacher will put his/her own views.  This makes the students a captive 
audience for these views and that is not right.

	We have more sources of information for a voter to use now than at 
any point in history.  Not only do we have the "mainstream media", which 
includes the major networks and regular neswpapers, but we have talk radio, 
one of the best ways to find out what America is thinking, oodles of news 
magazines, such as Time or Newsweek, CNN, C-SPAN(1 and 2), Headline News, 
news magazine shows, for example 20-20, and of course, anything on the 
Internet and/or other computer online services.  There really is no excuse 
for a person to be an uneducated voter, unless the voter chooses to be that
way.

ME