BSA is dying

[NJCubScouter 1389]

It is my understanding that ALL states have laws requiring their electors to vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged. However, if one of them violates the law, the consequence is the same as violating any other criminal law, i.e. probably a fine, though I don't know if it has really been enforced the few times this has happened. The law does NOT change the elector's vote -- it still counts for the "wrong" candidate.

 

The often heard statement that the U.S. is a republic, not a democracy, is both meaningless and not completely correct. The original, technical definition of "republic" is any nation where the people are sovereign, that is, there is no monarch. A second definition has developed, basically, a nation where the people actually govern themselves through elected representatives. The second definition is essentially the same as a "representative democracy" -- not "mob rule" as in a "pure democracy" (which has probably never existed in practice), but rule through elected representatives.

 

Some countries are technically republics, but are not truly representative democracies, examples, Egypt, Iraq, the Phillipines during the time of Marcos. There may be "elections" but there is only one party, and no real democracy. Some countries are representative democracies but not republics, because they have a monarch, though one who does not truly rule. Examples: the United Kingdom, Norway, Denmark. The U.S. is a republic under both definitions, in other words, a representative democracy.(This message has been edited by NJCubScouter)

[Rooster7 11]

According to the Scripps Howard News service (see article at http://www.s-t.com/daily/11-00/11-12-00/a11op044.htm), the electorates in these states are legally bound to vote for the winner of the state:

 

Alabama, Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, D.C., Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennesse, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming.

 

Five states threaten to punish unfaithful electors - New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Washington.

 

[packsaddle 753]

Sorry folks, I've been soaking in a bubble bath. Statistics aside (I tend to agree with Mark Twain) I think BSA is alive and well. It will live or die on the strength (or lack thereof) of the volunteer leaders. All of them. For better or worse they are the role models. The boys and their parents see us and the programs we support. These are the things that directly affect them. The negative press is something that might affect prospective families' decisions to look further. But in a close community like mine, the grapevine is stronger than the media. That said, I have had several families leave because of BSA policy (so they said). There is no way to account for those who look and pass the program by.

 

acco40, I tend to agree with your sentiments regarding BSA policies. This has not persuaded me to forsake the youth, however. I still think the program is a great program. I know of no Eagles who made their achievement in order to 'poke a stick in the eye' of BSA. I also know of no organization that penalizes Eagle Scouts. On the other hand, I have acquired a certain contempt for the 'professionals'. I continue to doubt their devotion to the boys as opposed to the organization.

 

littlebillie, nice to see you are continuing the tradition. I think it is important to note that role models are both Positive (read scout leaders) and Negative (read, athletes with feet of clay). Both types of role models can be employed to reinforce positive goals for the boys. For example, at summer camp the adult leaders can set positive examples through their personal conduct. When my boys comment on other leaders who smoke or who neglect to participate because of obesity, I respond to their observation and use it to provide a contrast to what their goals should be. I caution that they too, have choices to make...and they could end up just like those negative examples...if the boys do not choose wisely. The boys usually are in quiet thought for a little while.

 

BSA is subject to selective forces just like all populations and organizations. The organization will prosper or die according to its value to the public. Or it can evolve to include or exclude based on those same forces. I was once told by a former employer that, "In this society, you are paid according to what you contribute." Any fate will be determined on that basis, most likely. But I don't see any particular fate arriving for BSA in the foreseeable future...at least as long as my troop is doing well.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Well, Rooster, if that is the case about the electors, I guess that what I "understood" was not correct. The fact that electors can vote for whoever they want, in some states legally and in some illegally (though the "rogue" vote still counts), makes the electoral system even more ridiculous than I already thought it was. We voters have no clue in the world who these 538 (1 for each Senate and House seat and 3 for D.C.) people are, and yet they are the only people in the country whose votes actually count for president.

 

In and of itself, the "fix" for that would be to eliminate the actual electors and simply count the electoral votes by state based on who wins that state. But I personally think that the whole electoral system is a ridiculous anachronism and that we should elect the president directly. We are one nation, not simply a collection of states. I have a direct vote for my county registrar of deeds and mortgages, but not for the most important position in the country. How absurd.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Actually I like the Electoral College, it proves the genius of the Constiturional Authors. I spent a good deal of my life in Illinois where we always got the state government that Chicago wanted. Didn't matter what the people in downstate Illinois wanted it got because thats where the votes are. As soon as the country goes to a straight popular vote, you can just about forget seeing any presidential candidate in anything resembling a rural state. There will be no more criss-crossing the country meeting citizens from every little boro, hamlet and way station. The candidates will hole-up in the major population centers and speak specifically to the concerns of the urban and suburban areas. Actually, I couldnt fault them, cause I would do the same thing.

 

To change the system would take a constitutional amendment and I doubt many of the smaller rurally based states would want to give up their influence on a presidential race. The way its set up requires a candidate to look at the country as a whole, not as just a patchwork of population centers.

 

As a total aside, I always get amused when people start talking about the Electoral College and how its an ananchorism. It was built into the constitution and the bill of rights just as Freedom of Speech, Right to Bear Arms, Freedom of/from Religion are.

 

Why not consider the Bill of Rights flawed? Lets rework that, after all it was put together a long time ago, surely things are different now.

 

After the last presidential election there was lots of talk about needing an Amendment making the presidential election a straight popular vote, what happened to all that talk? It happens every time there is a close vote, much hue and cry and nothing is done, because in the end, the ELectoral College system works and is the best vehicle. Those guys who wrote the Constitution had their stuff together.

[Rooster7 11]

Why not consider the Bill of Rights flawed? Lets rework that, after all it was put together a long time ago, surely things are different now.

 

I know you meant the above statement to be "tongue in cheek", but don't be surprised if a chorus of liberals respond by saying- 'Yes, you make a valid point. Let's do that.' It never seizes to amaze me- how much wiser each new generation seems to think they are above and beyond the previous generations. "The Constitution is out-dated. 'Flawed men' wrote the Bible. Today's society is different." On and on they spout about "the times", the culture, and newly found wisdom as if we are evolving into some kind of new super speciesthe blather never stops. As long as God restrains his hand, evil and imperfect beings will have a hand in society. This fact did not escape our forefathers or the authors of the Bible. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are well-crafted and timeless documents. We should fight hard to keep them in place - as written.

[acco40 95]

OGE, I agree with you. Why not just forget having elected officials and just have the people vote directly, a national polling system. I shudder at the thought.

 

It makes me laugh when constituents complain that their elected officials don't vote the way they want. In my view, the elected officials should represent their conscience, morals, and beliefs and not necessarily their constituents. In an ideal world, they would be the same.

 

Those guys in the powdered wigs continue to amaze me with their foresight.

[Twocubdad 665]

"... don't be surprised if a chorus of liberals respond ..."

 

Rooster -- I got a laugh out of your reply. I have exactly the same fear, except that I worry about what conservatives will do to the freedoms of expression, privacy, religion, etc. Viva la difference.

 

Maybe the most important part of the constitution is Article V?

[OldGreyEagle 5]

It reminds me of a quote I heard in Grad School, a politican seeks to be elected, a statesman seeks to lead. We could use more of the latter and fewer of the former (hope I got that right)

 

And ::Shuders:: Imagine, Rooster you and I agreeing, In the words of Fagin from Oliver, I am reviewing the situation...

[pfann 10]

"We are one nation, not simply a collection of states"

 

Actually in my opinion, we are one nation AND a collection of states.

The Founding Fathers had the wise idea that a strong nation needed a strong central government, but also needed decentralized power in the form of states rights in order to serve as a check and balance to insure the central (or federal) government did not become too powerful. During the time of the Constitutional debates the federalists (Federalist Papers?) believed there were sufficient checks on the power of the federal governemtn. The anti-federalists believed in a federal geovernemtn but thought it too powerful as outlined in the Constitution. The compromise of these two groups was the Bill of Rights. Many political debates stem from these ideas. Some say the federal government should be able to do this or that, and others say the federal government should not be doing this or that.

 

If you think about it, isn't this how BSA is supposed to work. BSA national set policies and guidelines and the local councils/packs/troops/crews implement those policies as they see fit. Our pack meetings are similar to others in our area but not exactly alike. Many of the debates here in this forum follow a similar vein. Some say certain policies should be determined nationally and some say they should not be?

 

[pfann 10]

I will be in Vegas this weekend for a bachelor party (relax I plan on following the Scout Law/Oath and being a good role model for my kids)!

 

I look forward to catching up with all of you thoughts on this forum.

 

-pfann

[Bob White 20]

pfann,

Youre partially correct. The National Office of the BSA determines the program elements and methods, and publishes policies and guidelines as you say. We as a volunteers signed an oath to follow the BSA program. Your Charter Organization Head signs a contract each year promising that you will follow the program.

 

The policies are not there for us to implement as we like. Policies are the hard fast rules that you must follow in order to avoid criminal and civil charges and revocation of your membership.

 

Guidelines can be altered but not policies. Advancement, Uniforming and Safety are all controlled by policy.

 

The methods of each program are the parts we promised to follow when we joined. They are governed only by your strength of, or lack of, personal principles. The scouts know what is written in their handbooks, they rely on us to follow the program promised in those books. How can that be done if we don't follow the program.

 

Every unit might have different features and calendars but think of how much stronger our organization could be if we could get every unit leader to deliver the same scouting program that we promised.

 

Food for thought,

Bob White

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[pfann 10]

BW,

You bring up some good points.

 

The example I was thinking of was funding. At the pack level we participate in the popcorn fundraiser. Some packs conduct other fundraisers throughout the year. there are policies and guidelines about this. It is up to the pack to decide how they will raise funds as long as it follows the fundraising follows policy.

 

I have seen guidelines for internet sites for packs/troops. Not all sites are the same but they are supposed to follow the guidelines. Some units do not even have web sites.

 

Some councils even decide to get funding sources that other councils may not go after (whoops bad example-see other topics on that issue)!

 

-pfann

[ASM1 10]

I think what the problem is with BSA right now is that is has become slanted to a conservative management system. Please don't get me wrong here, it would be exactly the same if it had become slanted liberal in its management, only in reverse. The results would be the same. The way to preserve BSA is to regain the centralized, "diverse" (they preach that so strongly) management approach. That is a tall order and a task almost impossible to accomplish. Once extreme, no matter left or right, finding center is a long road back.

 

But here is a way we can all work together to bring it back. Remember that BSA is run primaryly about 98% by volunteers. The Professional Scouters are highly educated and trained, but rarely involved in troop organization or activities, or troop politics. There are a lot of people in Scouting that are so very impressed with their position and title. Unit Commissioner, Roundtable Commissioner, District Committee, etc... A lot of these people insist they will tell you how BSA runs things and you must abide by their recomendations. Just keep in mind that they are volunteers just as you are, their opinions are just that.

 

Run your program, and when in doubt contact your council professionals for advise. If like me, you will find that the "Offical" BSA position will differ greatly from what you have been told by a "volunteer". BSA is not going anywhere, they just need to improve their adult training, and I think they are trying to do that. But it will be a long road back.

 

ASM1

[colomike 10]

Being one that has been away from scouting for a long time, I feel that I am someone on the outside looking in. In that perspective it looks to me that overall scouting is in fine shape. The only thing that I see as a problem is the "internal bickering". As a member of serveral groups/organizations I've seen over the years the damage that internal stress can cause. The NRA would have twice the membership it has if it weren't for petty bickering. Hunting groups would have much more legislative pull if they would simply stop fighting amoungst themselves, and so on and so on. If you all could stand outside for a while and read the many post on the MB you would see that there is "bickering" on any subject you wish to read. No one seems to want to say Moderation is the key. Camo good, camo bad, cook boxes good, cook boxes bad, piercings ok, piercings forbidden, parents can sign off badge requirments, parent forbiden to, tattoos...well you get it, and so on. I understand that when you get this many people discussing this many subjects you are going to get many different opinions, but shouldn't the separations (after hours of discussion) become smaller? On here they seem to become great uncrossable canyons. Lets remember that there is often a difference between the "Letter of a rule and the Spirit of the rule".

 

On the Electoral College I would like to say that I would only like to see one change. I would like to see each Congressional district use it's own vote separate. Therefore if a mostly rural district voted Republican it wouldn't have to be thrown into the pot for the Democrats if that is the way the state voted overall. (and visa versa) If you would look at a county by county map of the last Presidential election, you would see that the rural areas voted overwelmingly Republican and the urban areas overwelmingly Democrat. Chicago is a great example of an urban area controling a (mostly rural)state.Here is a site that shows the county by county vote for those that haven't seen it. http://www.oakparkgop.org/emap.asp

Quote: It's too bad dirt can't vote.(This message has been edited by colomike)