DST (2018)

[tradephoric]

How would this work, exactly?  AIUI, anywhere that observes DST has to observe the same start and end times as everyone else.  Therefore, if California and Florida were to be granted permission to go full-time DST, then wouldn't the government have to mandate full-time DST for every other state as well?  So wouldn't the simpler solution be to simply put California on MST (just like Arizona) and Florida on AST?  Then they can simply opt out of DST and the result is still what they want.

While Florida and California wants to have later sunrises during the winter months, they don't want to be out of sync with the rest of the country.  That's why these states are lobbying the federal government to make DST permanent throughout the entire country (by amending the Uniform Time Act of 1966) as opposed to just letting their individual states switch time zones.  The legislation and propositions passed in these two states is just a way to lobby the federal government to amend the Uniform Time Act of 1966 to make DST permanent throughout the entire country. 

[kphoger]

How would this work, exactly?  AIUI, anywhere that observes DST has to observe the same start and end times as everyone else.  Therefore, if California and Florida were to be granted permission to go full-time DST, then wouldn't the government have to mandate full-time DST for every other state as well?  So wouldn't the simpler solution be to simply put California on MST (just like Arizona) and Florida on AST?  Then they can simply opt out of DST and the result is still what they want.

While Florida and California wants to have later sunrises during the winter months, they don't want to be out of sync with the rest of the country.  That's why these states are lobbying the federal government to make DST permanent throughout the entire country (by amending the Uniform Time Act of 1966) as opposed to just letting their individual states switch time zones.  The legislation and propositions passed in these two states is just a way to lobby the federal government to amend the Uniform Time Act of 1966 to make DST permanent throughout the entire country. 

Yeesh, two States trying to strong-arm the rest of the States.

Yep, we occupy that useless mass of land between Los Angeles and New York. Called America!

[kalvado]

Yeesh, two States trying to strong-arm the rest of the States.

Or you can say that those 2 states correspond to about 20% in population..
Problem of dense megapolises vs rest of the territory: lifestyles are different to the point people really stop understanding basic things about each other.

[kphoger]

Yeesh, two States trying to strong-arm the rest of the States.

Or you can say that those 2 states correspond to about 20% in population..
Problem of dense megapolises vs rest of the territory: lifestyles are different to the point people really stop understanding basic things about each other.

Hence, our nation's structure of government affords less populous states some measure of protection against being strong-armed by the more populous ones.  Frankly, people in Los Angeles and New York should only have limited say in how things operate in farm and ranch country–no matter how populous those cities are.  If they grew to a trillion residents each, they would have no more understanding of life in "that useless mass of land between" them (honestly, they would probably have less understanding), so their growth of influence on the affairs of the rest of the states should be limited.

[jakeroot]

Yeesh, two States trying to strong-arm the rest of the States.

Or you can say that those 2 states correspond to about 20% in population..
Problem of dense megapolises vs rest of the territory: lifestyles are different to the point people really stop understanding basic things about each other.

Hence, our nation's structure of government affords less populous states some measure of protection against being strong-armed by the more populous ones.  Frankly, people in Los Angeles and New York should only have limited say in how things operate in farm and ranch country–no matter how populous those cities are.  If they grew to a trillion residents each, they would have no more understanding of life in "that useless mass of land between" them (honestly, they would probably have less understanding), so their growth of influence on the affairs of the rest of the states should be limited.

Last I checked, we are the only country in the world that operates like that. We afford rural areas far more power than urban areas. All under the false pretense that everybody in urban areas has the same mindset. That's bollocks.

[kphoger]

Last I checked, we are the only country in the world that operates like that.

Last I checked, we are the only country that's the USA.

There was a time in history when "The United States of America" was a plural phrase, no a singular.  Our government was designed that way on purpose, and I believe the founding fathers knew what they were doing.  It's also one of the strongest arguments for keeping the Electoral College.

[kalvado]

Yeesh, two States trying to strong-arm the rest of the States.

Or you can say that those 2 states correspond to about 20% in population..
Problem of dense megapolises vs rest of the territory: lifestyles are different to the point people really stop understanding basic things about each other.

Hence, our nation's structure of government affords less populous states some measure of protection against being strong-armed by the more populous ones.  Frankly, people in Los Angeles and New York should only have limited say in how things operate in farm and ranch country–no matter how populous those cities are.  If they grew to a trillion residents each, they would have no more understanding of life in "that useless mass of land between" them (honestly, they would probably have less understanding), so their growth of influence on the affairs of the rest of the states should be limited.

If you will, this is about how government power should be distributed between different levels. Matters which concern some groups but not others (or worse, opposite requirements) should be regulated on a lower level. E.g. regarding this topic: those who mostly commute by subway have significantly different perception of daylight compared to drivers.
Problem here is that some issues can be resolved locally, but time zone necessarily involves synchronizing entire country (and entire world).
I am not sure what is the best approach in here. Thinking about it, maybe actually China does the right thing: one size time fits all. Feel free to adjust your town's schedule to what is best for your area so effectively setting the local clock while keeping everyone in synch.

[jakeroot]

Last I checked, we are the only country in the world that operates like that.

Last I checked, we are the only country that's the USA.

What does that even mean? That we can't accept criticism? We're still on planet Earth.

There was a time in history when "The United States of America" was a plural phrase, no a singular.  Our government was designed that way on purpose, and I believe the founding fathers knew what they were doing. It's also one of the strongest arguments for keeping the Electoral College.

But now that Manifest Destiny has made itself clear, and our population has exploded, we need to unify. That starts with recognizing population numbers, not electoral numbers.

[hotdogPi]

Thinking about it, maybe actually China does the right thing: one size time fits all. Feel free to adjust your town's schedule to what is best for your area so effectively setting the local clock while keeping everyone in synch.

There should never be a jump of 2 hours by switching time zones (except for the International Date Line), let alone 4.

[kphoger]

There should never be a jump of 2 hours by switching time zones

Norway—Russia

[US 89]

There was a time in history when "The United States of America" was a plural phrase, no a singular.  Our government was designed that way on purpose, and I believe the founding fathers knew what they were doing. It's also one of the strongest arguments for keeping the Electoral College.

But now that Manifest Destiny has made itself clear, and our population has exploded, we need to unify. That starts with recognizing population numbers, not electoral numbers.

Eh, I disagree. This issue doesn't just happen on a national scale; it happens on a state level (or even lower) scale as well. Take Illinois, for example. Most of the state is fairly conservative, but Chicago is so big that it essentially controls the state's politics. That leads to a lot of frustration in the rural areas, who feel they don't get a voice.

Roughly 40% of the US population lives in one of the six most populous states. While not everyone in those states is going to vote the same way, it's definitely a factor that would lead to a lot of resentment among the smaller states, who become even more of a "flyover country" than they are currently.

Also, for an example of how the founding fathers intended the states to be independent, look no further than the 10th Amendment. That states that any power (explicit or implied) not given to Congress belongs to the states. Of course, early interpretations of various parts of the Constitution have drastically increased the federal government's power (like the commerce clause).

[kalvado]

Thinking about it, maybe actually China does the right thing: one size time fits all. Feel free to adjust your town's schedule to what is best for your area so effectively setting the local clock while keeping everyone in synch.

There should never be a jump of 2 hours by switching time zones (except for the International Date Line), let alone 4.

Why?  I have no problem dealing with 3 hours when flying east to west coast, for example. Of course, that is not a land crossing - but given seamless US-Canada border is no longer, and US-Mexico is a wall, not a big problem to adjust the clock while waiting in line.

[kphoger]

Last I checked, we are the only country in the world that operates like that.

Last I checked, we are the only country that's the USA.

What does that even mean? That we can't accept criticism? We're still on planet Earth.

It means we shouldn't abandon American values just because other countries don't hold them.  I believe there's something special about the way our government was framed, and I believe it's worth protecting.

There was a time in history when "The United States of America" was a plural phrase, no a singular.  Our government was designed that way on purpose, and I believe the founding fathers knew what they were doing. It's also one of the strongest arguments for keeping the Electoral College.

But now that Manifest Destiny has made itself clear, and our population has exploded, we need to unify. That starts with recognizing population numbers, not electoral numbers.

Then you essentially doom rural America to having no political voice.  As most people live in cities, politics would gradually come to ignore the needs and concerns of everyone else.  Sorry but, just because your state has more people in it than mine, that doesn't mean your state's political leanings should have more influence on how my state is governed than the reverse.

[jakeroot]

There was a time in history when "The United States of America" was a plural phrase, no a singular.  Our government was designed that way on purpose, and I believe the founding fathers knew what they were doing. It's also one of the strongest arguments for keeping the Electoral College.

But now that Manifest Destiny has made itself clear, and our population has exploded, we need to unify. That starts with recognizing population numbers, not electoral numbers.

Eh, I disagree. This issue doesn't just happen on a national scale; it happens on a state level (or even lower) scale as well. Take Illinois, for example. Most of the state is fairly conservative, but Chicago is so big that it essentially controls the state's politics. That leads to a lot of frustration in the rural areas, who feel they don't get a voice.

Roughly 40% of the US population lives in one of the six most populous states. While not everyone in those states is going to vote the same way, it's definitely a factor that would lead to a lot of resentment among the smaller states, who become even more of a "flyover country" than they are currently.

Also, for an example of how the founding fathers intended the states to be independent, look no further than the 10th Amendment. That states that any power (explicit or implied) not given to Congress belongs to the states. Of course, early interpretations of various parts of the Constitution have drastically increased the federal government's power (like the commerce clause).

I understand that rural areas sometimes resent urban areas, because they *seem* to take control of elections. But those areas take control of elections because there are more people in those areas. Those in rural areas are seeking an unequal level of power, and that is very undemocratic.

The argument that I've seen, is that those in urban areas do not understand the plight of those in rural areas. And I wouldn't argue that's false. But to imply that rural areas know what's best for everyone...that's obviously not true either. In light of that paradox (that neither knows what's best for the other), we should just let the popular vote decide things. It may come across as unfair to those in rural areas, but you cannot argue against a majority vote.

Last I checked, we are the only country in the world that operates like that.

Last I checked, we are the only country that's the USA.

What does that even mean? That we can't accept criticism? We're still on planet Earth.

It means we shouldn't abandon American values just because other countries don't hold them.  I believe there's something special about the way our government was framed, and I believe it's worth protecting.

What is an "American value"? What makes our values different from Canada, Australia, the UK, France, Germany, Italy, South Africa...? We're still a country that uses politics to make decisions.

Maybe it's only being 22...maybe it'll become crystal clear in another few years. But I see nothing special about the American government. Sure, it was groundbreaking at the time. But most other countries operate the same way now, except, the way they decide things is different.



See my response to US89 above.

[tradephoric]

Here's a map of sunrise times during the winter solstice.  In general, states highlighted in orange and red would be more receptive of permanent daylight saving time as the sun would still rise before 8:30AM (which is still earlier than the sunrise times in some parts of the country running standard time during the winter).  It's not a surprise to me that California and Florida are included in this orange/red shading.  Alabama, Mississippi, and Western Tennessee are other areas that would seem to benefit from permanent DST.  OTOH, states highlighted in green shades may want to run standard time year-round... but there's not that much green on the map (and besides Michigan and Indiana, the areas in green shading have relatively sparse populations).

[doorknob60]

OTOH, states highlighted in green shades may want to run standard time year-round...).

Being in Boise (one of the few green areas), I can totally get behind keeping standard time in the winter. Makes sense, sunrises are already a bit late as is, but still manageable and at a reasonable time to keep the sunset not too early (it's a bit after 5 PM on the shortest day). But standard time year round would be awful. The sunrise is 6:03 AM on the summer solstice now, no way it needs to be 5:03 AM. For 95% of the population, moving to standard time year round would simply mean 1 hour less daylight during awake hours in the summer. Awful. I've been to northern Idaho where they are on PDT and not MDT in the summer, it was a noticeable downgrade. So I say keep DST as is (or move the dates around a bit, that's fine too). If states farther south with less variance between summer and winter want to abolish DST (like Arizona has already done), by all means go for it. Los Angeles has 1 full hour more daylight to work with on the winter solstice than Boise does, giving them a lot more wiggle room and making something like permanent DST sensible. But for states like Idaho it's not as clear-cut.

[hbelkins]

Too many posts to try to quote from above, but some general observations on the turn the discussion took about urban vs. rural interests, and so on.

The United States was not set up to be a democracy or "one person, one vote." The power was supposed to be concentrated in the states. Presidential elections were not designed to be a popular vote nationwide. They were instead set up to be a collection of 50 -- well, 13 at the time -- individual state elections. That's why the Electoral College was established as the method of officially choosing the president. States were and are free to set their elections up however they wanted, be they winner-take-all for the electors, or awarding them proportionally according to the percentage of the vote in the states. That's a big reason why the current movement to have states award their electors to the winner of the popular vote nationwide rather than who wins within the state bothers me. It runs counter to the way the system was set up to run. And also the 17th Amendment. Senators were supposed to be chosen by the states to represent state interests, rather than by the voters. The House was to represent the people; the Senate to represent state governments.

States really should be free to decide what time zone(s) they want to be in, or whether or not they want to observe DST or standard time. Every time this debate has come up (annually, I think), I have mentioned Wayne County, Ky., and its switch from CT to ET several years ago. The county should not have had to obtain federal permission to switch.

[tradephoric]

Being in Boise (one of the few green areas), I can totally get behind keeping standard time in the winter. Makes sense, sunrises are already a bit late as is, but still manageable and at a reasonable time to keep the sunset not too early (it's a bit after 5 PM on the shortest day). But standard time year round would be awful. The sunrise is 6:03 AM on the summer solstice now, no way it needs to be 5:03 AM. For 95% of the population, moving to standard time year round would simply mean 1 hour less daylight during awake hours in the summer. Awful. I've been to northern Idaho where they are on PDT and not MDT in the summer, it was a noticeable downgrade. So I say keep DST as is (or move the dates around a bit, that's fine too). If states farther south with less variance between summer and winter want to abolish DST (like Arizona has already done), by all means go for it. Los Angeles has 1 full hour more daylight to work with on the winter solstice than Boise does, giving them a lot more wiggle room and making something like permanent DST sensible. But for states like Idaho it's not as clear-cut.

The daylight duration for Boise, Idaho is identical to Wolfeboro, New Hampshire... but the sun rises and sets exactly one hour later in Boise (after adjusting for timezone changes).  So if New Hampshire went to permanent DST, the sunrise/sunset times in Wolfesboro during the winter solstice would match what the people of Boise currently experience.  Similarly, if Idaho went to permanent standard time, the sunrise/sunset times in Boise during the summer solstice would match what the residents of Wolfeboro currently experience. 

The sun setting at 8:30PM during the summer solstice sounds way too early... but that's coming from someone who lives on the western edge of a timezone who enjoys 9:30PM sunsets during the summer.  If Michigan went to standard time year-round it would be brutal to lose that hour of evening summer sunlight.... but maybe someone in Boston would think a 9:30PM sunset is too damn late.   Similarly, for someone living on the western edge of a timezone, what's the big deal if the sun rises at 9AM during the winter solstice... we are already use to late sunrises during the winter.  Whereas if you live on the eastern edge of a timezone and are use to 7AM sunrises (even during the middle of the winter) a 9AM sunrise might sound insane to you.  It's all perspective... but if the people of Boise, Idaho and Wolfeboro, New Hampshire can survive with their current sunrise/sunset times.. i think American's would be able to adapt to getting rid of the time changes.

[webny99]

Hence, our nation's structure of government affords less populous states some measure of protection against being strong-armed by the more populous ones.  Frankly, people in Los Angeles and New York should only have limited say in how things operate in farm and ranch country–no matter how populous those cities are.  If they grew to a trillion residents each, they would have no more understanding of life in "that useless mass of land between" them, so their growth of influence on the affairs of the rest of the states should be limited.

I agree that individual states, especially more populous ones, shouldn't be able to throw their weight around to make national policies and decisions without consensus from a majority in all or at least most states.

Simultaneously, though, in many ways I resent smaller states being over-represented in the Senate and the electoral college. Sure, at the state level, each state should be able do whatever its people want, but no one individual voter or state should have outsized influence when it comes to the entire nation - in rural or in urban areas.

[GaryV]

Hence, our nation's structure of government affords less populous states some measure of protection against being strong-armed by the more populous ones.  Frankly, people in Los Angeles and New York should only have limited say in how things operate in farm and ranch country–no matter how populous those cities are.  If they grew to a trillion residents each, they would have no more understanding of life in "that useless mass of land between" them, so their growth of influence on the affairs of the rest of the states should be limited.

I agree that individual states, especially more populous ones, shouldn't be able to throw their weight around to make national policies and decisions without consensus from a majority in all or at least most states.

Simultaneously, though, in many ways I resent smaller states being over-represented in the Senate and the electoral college. Sure, at the state level, each state should be able do whatever its people want, but no one individual voter or state should have outsized influence when it comes to the entire nation - in rural or in urban areas.

Of course those representation anomalies came about because it was the only way the larger (at that time) states were going to get the smaller states to go along with a new Constitution.  That and the concessions made to southern states regarding their "peculiar institution".  Since the latter was changed, perhaps representation in the Federal government can also someday be changed.  But it's hardly the same type of moral issue.

[webny99]

But it's hardly the same type of moral issue.

Yeah, that's kind of what I was thinking after I posted. We've strayed far from the implications of just two populous states advocating permanent DST..

[jakeroot]

Yeesh, two States trying to strong-arm the rest of the States.

Or you can say that those 2 states correspond to about 20% in population..
Problem of dense megapolises vs rest of the territory: lifestyles are different to the point people really stop understanding basic things about each other.

This actually highlights a problem I have with systems that lump voters together.

CA Prop 7 passed with 59.9% in favour. 4,107,458 voted in favour; 2,747,423 opposed. Assuming all Floridians were in favour (no way to know as it was a legislative bill), the support actually falls to 8.5%, since A) not all Californians voted, and B) not all who voted, voted in favour. This highlights an issue with winner-take all systems, which electoral systems inherently represent (49 jurisdictions have this rule). It falsely represents the wishes of all voters (electorates are tied heavily to population), regardless if everyone actually voted, and makes it look like support for something is greater than it is in reality.

The United States was not set up to be a democracy or "one person, one vote." The power was supposed to be concentrated in the states. Presidential elections were not designed to be a popular vote nationwide. They were instead set up to be a collection of 50 -- well, 13 at the time -- individual state elections. That's why the Electoral College was established as the method of officially choosing the president. States were and are free to set their elections up however they wanted, be they winner-take-all for the electors, or awarding them proportionally according to the percentage of the vote in the states. That's a big reason why the current movement to have states award their electors to the winner of the popular vote nationwide rather than who wins within the state bothers me. It runs counter to the way the system was set up to run. And also the 17th Amendment. Senators were supposed to be chosen by the states to represent state interests, rather than by the voters. The House was to represent the people; the Senate to represent state governments.

Hell, let's just get rid of the Senate. Give the power to the House. Executive overreach has become a serious problem, but Congress is increasingly bogged down by its inability to agree on anything. Repealing the 17th would be a start, but I doubt that would be a popular move.

[oscar]

Hell, let's just get rid of the Senate. Give the power to the House. Executive overreach has become a serious problem, but Congress is increasingly bogged down by its inability to agree on anything. Repealing the 17th would be a start, but I doubt that would be a popular move.

Especially with the smaller states that get equal representation in the Senate disproportionate to their populations (under both the 17th Amendment and the original Constitution) -- and benefit from the provision that even an otherwise kosher constitutional amendment may not deny them equal representation in the Senate without their consent

[Scott5114]

This thread was a repetitive mess anyway, and now that it's taking a turn into political stuff it's time to pull the plug.