Discussion - How Should One Vote?

[Townhallsavoy]

Should a person vote for candidates that represent the best opportunity for personal gain and growth, or should a person vote for candidates that represent what's best for others?

An example - Teacher tenure laws. 

Why would I as a teacher vote for tenure laws to be abolished when those laws give me ultimate protection from losing my income? 

[Tarheel]

Should a person vote for candidates that represent the best opportunity for personal gain and growth, or should a person vote for candidates that represent what's best for others?

An example - Teacher tenure laws. 

Why would I as a teacher vote for tenure laws to be abolished when those laws give me ultimate protection from losing my income?

A republic will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every republic will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy.

[Saniflush]

BOOM!

[Townhallsavoy]

Would you say that people are asking for generous gifts, or do they think they're asking for basic needs of survival? 

Continuing with the teacher tenure example - Voting against tenure laws could be seen as giving the state power that harms the quality of education. 

So why would why I risk the quality of my job and security for the good of the state? 

[GH2001]

Neither.

It should be the candidate that will help the country prosper inside the guidelines of the founding documents. If that happens, then everyone will be successful IF they want to be. It just so happens that most things in my best interest coincide with this logic.

Sometimes things that seem to be in your best interest directly (and many times short term) have long term or indirect side effects and ramifications down the road. Take Labor Unions for instance. It prevents child labor, prevents companies from killing workers for 90 hours a week, let's workers air out complaints, they make sure workers are taken care of right? Well, those same unions have taken care of workers to a fault where they have bankrupted the very industries the workers work in. The two chief examples that come to mind are the USPS and the Auto industry. They have "taken care of themselves" out of a job. The USPS is going to need a subsidy to get by this year. Closing underperforming post offices, de-unionizing and doing performance evals/bringing in better talent - has all been discussed as a way for the USPS to return to profitability, but no.....the Postal Workers Union would rather spend millions on National TV Ads (that I literally see everyday on TV) begging people to act out against these things that would be for the betterment of the USPS. Unions will stay true to the unions til the death. They will not concede. The UAW did the same thing during the bailout legislation.

And that is the perfect example to me of what I was illustrating in things that seem like they are in someone's best interest and actually are not - Union Workers wanting to be union.

To your example, I think tenure laws can breed complacency. They can also allow bad apple teachers to remain where they are without fear of losing their job even if their teaching is shitty. As a parent, I can see very much some ramifications downstream from this. Even though it seems good on the surface.

[GH2001]

Would you say that people are asking for generous gifts, or do they think they're asking for basic needs of survival? 

Continuing with the teacher tenure example - Voting against tenure laws could be seen as giving the state power that harms the quality of education. 

So why would why I risk the quality of my job and security for the good of the state?

How can that HARM the quality? They would have the ability at that point to fire a teacher who is doing badly. Right now, that is very hard to do. I don't know very many professions in the private sector like that. All jobs should be performance based, otherwise - whats the point? Most companies would cease to exist after X amount of time if they had to follow these same tenure laws. They have to survive and stay out of the red so they usually hire the best people and fire the duds.

BTW - most states are in the red re: Education Budgets. Not a well oiled machine...just sayin.

[Snaggletiger]

I vote for the pretty one

[Tarheel]

Would you say that people are asking for generous gifts, or do they think they're asking for basic needs of survival? 

Continuing with the teacher tenure example - Voting against tenure laws could be seen as giving the state power that harms the quality of education. 

So why would why I risk the quality of my job and security for the good of the state?

No offense but "job security" sounds like a generous gift to me.  I don't know anyone who has that station in life anymore.

[GH2001]

No offense but "job security" sounds like a generous gift to me.  I don't know anyone who has that station in life anymore.

And sorry, but the state giveth you your job, the state can taketh away. The hand that feeds you one day, can starve you the next. The State should be able to do whatever it needs to do to keep a balanced budget as this is taxpayer money.

[Saniflush]

No offense but "job security" sounds like a generous gift to me.  I don't know anyone who has that station in life anymore.

Outside of supreme court justices I would say you are correct.

[Tarheel]

And sorry, but the state giveth you your job, the state can taketh away. The hand that feeds you one day, can starve you the next. The State should be able to do whatever it needs to do to keep a balanced budget as this is taxpayer money.

What happened to merit rather than tenure as a basis?

Oh, sorry; "Unions".  I forgot.  I had a temporary lapse of reason.

[Townhallsavoy]

No offense but "job security" sounds like a generous gift to me.  I don't know anyone who has that station in life anymore.

This is how tenure is sold to college students.  At least, it's how Auburn taught it.

Before tenure, the state took advantage of teachers making their lives chaotic and insecure.  Learning was always last and money always first.  Without tenure, life would go right back to it.

So for a teacher, tenure law may not seem like a generous gift.  It would seem more like a need. 

[Townhallsavoy]

How can that HARM the quality? They would have the ability at that point to fire a teacher who is doing badly. Right now, that is very hard to do. I don't know very many professions in the private sector like that. All jobs should be performance based, otherwise - whats the point? Most companies would cease to exist after X amount of time if they had to follow these same tenure laws. They have to survive and stay out of the red so they usually hire the best people and fire the duds.

BTW - most states are in the red re: Education Budgets. Not a well oiled machine...just sayin.

I agree.  I wish I hadn't used tenure as the example.

How about unemployment benefits?

Why should someone who is unemployed not vote for an extension to unemployment assistance especially when budget cuts can be made elsewhere? 

I guess I can condense my thoughts into something more efficient:

We live in a country that allows for the government to meet the intrinsic needs of all people.  Being a constitutional republic, the government and the majority are responsible for ensuring that minorities are granted the right to have their intrinsic needs met.  All of us can argue that we have a particular intrinsic need that may not be manifested in the majority; therefore, each of us can be considered a minority of some sort.  From this point, we begin to separate ourselves from the majority.  There no longer is a majority but rather a series of minority groups that have special interests.  These groups will inevitably vote for candidates that will meet their desires. 

Am I off base at this point?

[GH2001]

I agree.  I wish I hadn't used tenure as the example.

How about unemployment benefits?

Why should someone who is unemployed not vote for an extension to unemployment assistance especially when budget cuts can be made elsewhere? 

I guess I can condense my thoughts into something more efficient:

We live in a country that allows for the government to meet the intrinsic needs of all people.  Being a constitutional republic, the government and the majority are responsible for ensuring that minorities are granted the right to have their intrinsic needs met.  All of us can argue that we have a particular intrinsic need that may not be manifested in the majority; therefore, each of us can be considered a minority of some sort.  From this point, we begin to separate ourselves from the majority.  There no longer is a majority but rather a series of minority groups that have special interests.  These groups will inevitably vote for candidates that will meet their desires. 

Am I off base at this point?

The problem with unemployment is that it shouldn't be an issue. You pay into it while you work so you can dip into it while you are not working temporarily if something happens. No issue there. Right?

The issue with entitlements now is that so many are getting things, when they didn't pay into the system or are getting much more out of it than they ever paid into. That causes the system to be in the extreme red. Same with Social Security.

It's hard to vote against the hand that feeds you. This is the problem with the gov't getting its hands into everything. When it starts paying people and feeding people, sure - the people are gonna "Vote" for it. This was actually something that Lenin banked on. He knew if he could get the masses to rely on him enough for their basic needs, he could always count on their vote (if you want to call it that in a communist country) or support, even if it was not the right thing to do. They aren't going to vote no to the hand that feeds them. Very few people turn down gifts.

[Tarheel]

This is how tenure is sold to college students.  At least, it's how Auburn taught it.

Before tenure, the state took advantage of teachers making their lives chaotic and insecure.  Learning was always last and money always first.  Without tenure, life would go right back to it.

So for a teacher, tenure law may not seem like a generous gift.  It would seem more like a need.

I do understand but I have a problem with the use of tenure for any job especially one that is funded from the public trough.  I cannot rationalize it as a producer who has no job security and who pays-into a government system that allows job security internally.  That is, however, beside the point of your initial question.

You have a choice in the matter you posed but your choice is illusory in that you must vote your own good under the given circumstances.

Other than that I think that GH hit the proverbial nail on the head in this post regarding your second example:

The problem with unemployment is that it shouldn't be an issue. You pay into it while you work so you can dip into it while you are not working temporarily if something happens. No issue there. Right?

The issue with entitlements now is that so many are getting things, when they didn't pay into the system or are getting much more out of it than they ever paid into. That causes the system to be in the extreme red. Same with Social Security.

It's hard to vote against the hand that feeds you. This is the problem with the gov't getting its hands into everything. When it starts paying people and feeding people, sure - the people are gonna "Vote" for it. This was actually something that Lenin banked on. He knew if he could get the masses to rely on him enough for their basic needs, he could always count on their vote (if you want to call it that in a communist country) or support, even if it was not the right thing to do. They aren't going to vote no to the hand that feeds them. Very few people turn down gifts.

[Townhallsavoy]

It's hard to vote against the hand that feeds you. This is the problem with the gov't getting its hands into everything. When it starts paying people and feeding people, sure - the people are gonna "Vote" for it. This was actually something that Lenin banked on. He knew if he could get the masses to rely on him enough for their basic needs, he could always count on their vote (if you want to call it that in a communist country) or support, even if it was not the right thing to do. They aren't going to vote no to the hand that feeds them. Very few people turn down gifts.

How do you prevent this?  It seems like an inevitability. 

The candidate is going to lower taxes, deregulate business practices, and promote accountability.  So the hard working man votes for him.  Why?  Because it benefits him. 

The candidate is going to boost unemployment benefits, put stricter regulations on businesses, and promote fairness in hiring and firing.  So the unemployed man votes for him. 

This gets even more diversified.  Take social issues such as gay marriage, affirmative action, women's rights.  Then war issues.  Then religious issues.  Etcetera. 

What ultimately happens is that you have divided factions being pandered to by politicians who cannot meet everyone's desires thus leading to a state that is fraught with strife and frustration.  This seems to be where we are now and only seem to be headed more in that direction. 

What we need is a spark of nationalism and something to bring us together.  Unfortunately, this generally occurs during times of war. 

[bird35]

As a educator in the state of Georgia I have had some experience with the elimination of tenure.  Georgia took tenure away when the economy was good and most school systems were hiring so most teachers did not mind.  In fact my opinion at the time was "They will keep the good teachers and if I am not good enough to be wanted by the administration then I will find another school or profession." 

Then when times got tough and administration was charged with lowering cost and allowed to do whatever they wanted I saw the ugly side of no tenure.  The worst policy was any teacher will be fired if they use 6 sick or personal days during any one school year.  This is a combination of sick and personal days.  So I spend 12 years at this school and average using 3 days off per year (adding sick and personal days together), but in my 13th year I get bit by a black widow and spend 2 days in the hospital because it gets infected and I take a 3rd day off because I had a fever of over 100 and am in pain.   6 months later the infection comes back and I go back to the hospital with a 103 fever for 2 days.  I have to check myself out of the hospital at 2:30 am and show up at school with a high fever and nausea because I have hit my 5th day.   I spend the day throwing up in trash cans and putting them in the hall.

My 5 year old gets sick and is throwing up and I have to tell him "Tough it out the best you can buddy."  The school calls all day and I don't answer the phone.   Sent my daughter to school with strep throat and I went to school with strep  because if I take another day I get canned.

Teacher two door down breaks his hip and gets into a car accident in the same year ....fired.

Teacher on the next hall gets two viruses in the same year and had to miss her mother in laws funeral.

They get around any legal ramifications because they don't officially "fire" you due to illness, but rather give you a "Needs improvement" on you evaluation in the area of attendance.   At the end of the year every one with a needs improvement gets RIFed.     

To make matters worse I have over 100 sick days built up, but I am a car wreck, heart attack or spider bite away from losing my job. 

[djsimp]

I vote for the pretty one

This did.not.go unnoticed.

[Townhallsavoy]

Bird - How is that legal?  Surely if you present a doctor's note, you cannot be fired.  Short-term disability would at the least cover that. 

[bird35]

Bird - How is that legal?  Surely if you present a doctor's note, you cannot be fired.  Short-term disability would at the least cover that.

They get around it because:    They do not fire you for using your sick day.   You get a "Needs Improvement" on one of the 30 categories of our teacher evaluation.  Then at the end of the year the county is out of money and they RIF (Reduction In Force) all employees who earned a single "Needs Improvement" in any category.  The legal requirements to RIF someone is much less than what is needed to fire them.    So congratulations you did not get fired,  you got riffed.   Please be out of the building in 30 minutes.   

Then to add insult to injury................... You get a choice...........You can resign and collect NO unemployment benefits (even if you paid into the system for years)............OR you can be a RIF.
If you are a RIF then you are classified as a "Non-renewal of Contract."   

Teachers who do a poor job are classified as  "Non-renewal of Contract."   
Teachers who sleep with students are classified as "Non-renewal of Contract."   
Teachers who hit students are classified as "Non-renewal of Contract."   
Teachers who get RIFed are classified as "Non-renewal of Contract."   
If you are classified as "Non-renewal of Contract" you will never get another job in Georgia or any other state.  So not only are you fired but you will never work as an educator again in America.  But if you resign and do not give the county or state a black eye then you are eligible for rehire when the economy picks up.

The same state who pays unemployement benefits also makes the rules regarding teachers who are Riffed not getting benefits.
DO NOT GIVE UP TENURE WITHOUT A FIGHT