Beavah

My "view" baden, is that it is not "national" as you say that dumbs down or deemphasizes outdoor programs. Units do that, not "national". Yes and no, eh? Of course units are da ones that actually run programs for youth. "National" doesn't. So yah, sure, "dumbing down" of outdoor program happens at da unit and council camp level. But as we see here often, it's a product of national's materials and training that allows and encourages unit and council volunteers to do that dumbing down, eh? All yeh need to do is pick up any thread on "don't add to the requirements" and "no retesting", the two magical phrases which override all the rest of the program in many people's minds, includin' some on da national advancement team. If we were really teachin' kids outdoor skills, then retesting shouldn't matter a lick. If yeh know how to ride a bike, yeh can retest on it any time. If yeh know how to grill a steak, yeh can retest on it any time. Same with any skill that yeh really know. "Here, watch me do it!" says any confident, red-blooded boy. A lad who really knows how to swim is always ready to dive in and show you! If we were really teachin' kids outdoor skills, we would always be addin' to da requirements, because yeh can't reduce outdoor skills to a list of enumerated items. Instead of makin' 'em "tell" the 9 steps of Safety Afloat, we'd be expectin' 'em to actually plan and lead safe trips afloat. Instead of "telling" da symptoms of a heart attack and "explaining" CPR we'd moulage up a victim who was "experiencing" a heart attack and see if a lad recognizes and responds, and does good CPR for the poor plastic gent in cardiac arrest. Instead of "explaining" how to handle food safety, we'd expect the boys to actually handle food safely in a variety of conditions. It's when da national program materials say that boys only have to explain how to handle food safely, and then they imply that yeh can't add to that by making sure they really handle food safely, that folks get confused. And then they say that yeh can't ever ask 'em again to see if they really learned how to handle food safely or just crammed it in short-term memory that folks get da wrong idea. And then parents and well-meaning district nitwits wag their fingers and thump on their books and say you can't deny junior his First Class badge even though he made his whole patrol sick. There's an illegible scrawl of a signature on the line that proves he "explained" safe food handling. No adding! No retesting! Yep, a troop can fix da problem by doin' its own thing and followin' da real program that makes for men of honor and good character, and ignorin' such silliness. I just reckon lots of us think it would be a tad easier if our program materials actually reflected da expectation of proficiency that we should have of all our boys. It's an easy enough fix, eh? Every rank and badge requirements list begins with "To earn this recognition, a scout must demonstrate personal proficiency in all of the listed skills and activities in the field. He must demonstrate the skills on his own, without help or prompting, and on demand. Skills may be retested at any point up to the award of the badge, and after receiving a recognition a scout is on his honor to maintain his skills for as long as he wears the uniform. " Beavah

Yah, in da previous thread, fred8033 offers: I've heard rumors of a one-unit approach. I really hope it's more than just lip service of automatically registering cubs in the same COR's troop. I hope it really is re-engineering scouting to be a one-unit concept. Maybe different meetings and different outings. But, designed to be one unit. I can't speak to da rumors. Seems like a good discussion, though. Of course most of the world works this way, with one scout "group" that runs from age 6 to age 25, movin' from young Cubs to Cubs to Scouts to Ventures to Rovers within da same bigger organization. It's quite successful. At da same time, a lot of that world has more highly resourced Scouting, where governments subsidize youth programs, includin' Scouting. On the downside, yeh still tend to see attrition at da upper levels, which makes 'em progressively weaker. As close as I can tell in da U.S., it really takes 2-3 cub packs to feed a strong troop in most cases. Some of that is demographic, eh? Packs are associated with elementary schools, which have a smaller population. Typically 2-3 elementary schools feed one middle school in a similar fashion. That gives yeh a big enough population to be able to do middle school things. So my worry would be that da one unit model would lead to more but weaker troops, as though kids stayed in a small elementary school all their life even though their interests expanded and broadened. What do folks think? Beavah

Yah, but I'm not sure COs really have da skill set to do things like recruitment or helping packs provide a good program, eh? That's da whole reason they contracted with the BSA in the first place. If they had the internal ability to generate program, there'd be no need for the BSA. Most of our partners are churches, eh? When a church chooses to have a program, they either pay for their own professional staff or they use knowledgeable volunteers and outside resources. We're in da second group, eh? They're usin' volunteers and payin' for BSA support. What's a minister know about runnin' a youth outdoors and citizenship program? If units are sufferin' in da way fred8033 suggests, that's a failure of da BSA and the local council, not the Chartered Org. We aren't livin' up to our end of the bargain. Beavah

Yah, yeh have to have da boards of review in sequence, but they can be the same night and without a break in between eh? Don't sweat da small stuff. If a lad had everything done except a pullup or somesuch, have a mega-BOR where yeh give him all three. Or if you're really officious, take 3-minute coffee breaks along da way to certify Tenderfoot and 2C. Rank requirements and MB requirements are separate, because they have different folks signin' off to different standards. For rank, it's da SM or his designee. For MBs, it's the MB counselor. Only if someone has dual authority (like an ASM who is also da lad's MBC) can certify both, but he/she should certify each requirement to da standards expected for that requirement. Practice and repetition are good things. Back to WestCoastScouter, though... Yep, a lad can work on requirements from all ranks at the same time, unless otherwise stated (in da upper ranks you'll find statements like "While a First Class Scout, do ...." so those have to wait until the boy has earned First Class or whatnot). Most boys typically have about half da requirements for the next rank done at the time they complete the first rank. Beavah

Yah, that change was made to accommodate all the lads in drought areas with fire bans (more than half the lower 48 last summer!). Da thing of it is, there's no reason why they couldn't have left this up to SM discretion. In other words, why not have the requirement to be to build and successfully start a fire. Then have a footnote that says "in areas with extensive drought or burn bans lasting more than two months, a scout who has only this requirement to complete may, at his Scoutmaster's discretion, fulfill this requirement in an indoor fireplace or by constructing a suitable outdoor fire lay without lighting it. The scout on his honor should demonstrate successful fire starting at the first available opportunity after any ban is lifted." In other words, instead of dumbing down da requirement for everyone, allow a reasonable exception for those in drought-affected areas. Heck, a good scouter in those areas would have made reasonable exceptions anyway, eh? Beavah

Yep, I agree it's silly. One charter agreement should be sufficient. As for da rest, as AlFansome says, one master CC is possible, but that's really what da COR's role is supposed to be, eh? Da cubs need somebody to run cub committee meetings who knows cub scouting, and those skills are very different from what a troop or crew Committee Chair need to know or be able to do. Why create somethin' new when da current structure provides exactly what yeh suggest? Beavah

Yah, hmmm.... Yep, da meeting with da IH or COR is one of those things that yeh rarely see DEs actually do. Unless they're very new and conscientious, which probably means they won't be around long. . Yeh get da behaviors that yeh reward, eh? There's no recognition for customer service in da BSA. Eagle732, I'd offer three thoughts. Da first is that often your better recourse is through the folks you elect, eh? Da district chairman and the council officers (council president, etc.). They will meet with your COR or be da subject of a very public "no" vote at da next annual meeting. Da second is that DEs don't have da best experience or training. If yeh have a serious issue, yeh are best to skip da DE and go to one of the more senior folks like the Field Director or Program Director, or just to the SE. I wouldn't hesitate to do that in the least; that's what those folks are there for. Third, it sounds to me like this is a "known issue" by the response of the council staff. In other words, they've heard it from someone in your troop before, or from someone else, and have already reached a decision that they aren't willing to revisit. Unprofessional and a bit cowardly on their part, IMHO, but at da same time understandable. Once yeh make a decision yeh don't want to keep revisiting it. Only you can decide if this is somethin' that yeh should just accept as a decision that didn't go your way and just get on with things, and how far to pursue it. Was it really so bad that da CO is willing to shut down its scouting program over? Or are egos gettin' in the way a bit? I reckon somethin' worth ending a program lock, stock, and barrel is also worth doin' so publicly. So a good test in your mind might be "Are we ready and willing to take this to the media (or the police)?". If not, then perhaps yeh might get folks to take a step or two back. Your COR is responsible for your programs, but is only one voice in da council, and sometimes the other voices disagree. As to an SE tryin' to throw you out, I think that's silly. Those decisions are reviewed by others and not taken lightly, and while there have been a few cases of whistleblowers being targeted by vindictive SEs there tended to at least be some other behavioral issues tied up in such things. Beavah

Yah, sthumper, good on yeh for thinkin' deeply on this. One of da truths of scouting is that as an adult yeh can't really teach a boy anything, eh? All yeh can do is set up da circumstances so that it is more likely that he will learn. Da art of Patrol Method is settin' up da circumstances so that it is more likely that the boys will learn. So a lot of da choice of how yeh set things up depends on exactly what yeh want boys to learn. Da BSA was mixed-age patrols for most of its history. Same - age patrols are a relatively recent notion that came in 1990 and has a mixed record. Most of us old timers tend to prefer mixed age, and of course most of da troops in the country are relatively small and are mixed-age by default. I think, though, based on da goals you seem to have for your boys, mixed-age patrols are the best choice. They make da jobs of PL and APL real, eh? Those older boys have genuine responsibility to really lead. Now to your questions. Yep, da oldest boys who learned that Scouting was about hanging around with your buddies instead of learning leadership and service will fight you. While I disagree with Eagledad on da bit about kids getting all their wiring set in puberty, there's a bit of truth to it. Yeh have to work harder with the older lads to change their view through inspiration and example, and yeh will lose a few. Da way to do things is on the rewards side. Make the PLC something special. Your older boys will naturally be PLs. Have PLC-only outings where yeh do high-adventury stuff and some troop planning work. Take high-performing PLC boys on exploration trips to check out possible new activities. This gives 'em some time with peers, but da time is focused on how to really be men - how to be strong and lead others. Make these tough, eh? 20 miles of rolling hills with packs. . And then challenge 'em to get their patrols to do 5 miles. Lots of adults prefer age-based patrols because they can't learn to treat older boys as peers and fellow leaders, eh? As men instead of boys. Keep 'em all together and they're a group of boys. Let 'em really lead younger boys and now they're doin' the same job as ASMs, eh? Yeh have to think of 'em and treat 'em as men. Use some special outings to really train your older scout PLs. Yeh have to make them comfortable and confident if they are goin' to lead. Not comfortable with organizational charts or job descriptions, but with actually doin' stuff. Is da troop going canoeing? When are yeh going to get the PLs and APLs out canoeing in advance to practice both skills and leading? As VeniVidi suggests, one of da biggest advantages of mixed-age patrols is that yeh can have real patrol competitions. That leads to real patrol spirit. Use it. Regular, ongoin' competition. Separate patrols, and give patrols that are gettin' it together more freedom. Let 'em hike on their own without adults. Let 'em plan their own patrol outing(s). Make this always "for patrols that are ready", in part as a safety thing, but mostly as genuine recognition of their teamwork and that yeh trust their PL as a man. Yep, extra work required scouts are an issue. Only da best of your older boys can handle some of that sort, and even they can get burned out. Yeh need to task out adults to each such boy. Can be parents, can be someone else, but whoever it is needs to be consistent. Long-term relationships matter in helpin' such lads along. Nope, given what yeh say your goals are for personal growth in your troop, I think da mixed-age setup will be a stronger one for yeh long-term. I wouldn't suggest goin' back to same-age, nor would I recommend goin' to wide-open, as your goals aren't compatible with leavin' a bunch of young kids behind or all da misfits together. Yeh won't be happy with that, and you'll want to interfere to stop it, which just makes things adult-run. Remember, da goal is to set up conditions that make it more likely for the boys to learn, not for you to do it / teach them. For da way yeh are lookin' at things, mixed age is best. Other thoughts? Keep on keepin' on! You're a real scouter when yeh care enough and think deeply enough that you and the boys are willing to try things and experiment together. Keep your eyes on da prize, and keep tryin' new things until yeh get da results yeh want. And yah, go read da archives for sure, eh? You'll find a lot of old threads on mixed age vs same age and other patrol method stuff! Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

In the literal sense, workers ARE nothing more than input. In da literal sense? Really? Nonsense. Whether you're talkin' economically or socially, workers are workers. In da business & economic sense they are human capital - an investment in da way CalicoPenn describes - not "input." I think what you're mixin' up from basic economics is da notion of labor and that of workers. Labor is somethin' that gets treated as an economic "input" if yeh are talkin' classical economic theory. But labor ain't the same thing as workers. Labor is work, not workers. And while we're clarifyin' economic principles, business is not in business to "take care of itself." Business is in business to provide a good or service to others. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

I got some freinds who are small business owners, and all have said that ACA is going to cost them so much that in order to keep the business as is, they have to let people go and not grow their businesses. Yah, there's a lot of fearmongerin' on this, but I'm not sure how anyone could make this claim yet, since none of da Exchanges are set up and da final regs aren't in place. Small businesses with less than 50 FTE employees aren't affected at all, except that they might be able to offer health coverage for their employees through tax credits and other features. I wouldn't call a business with more than 50 full time employees a small one, eh? 93% of da businesses in da U.S. fall below that number. Da problem will be with businesses that are just a bit bigger than 50 full-timers, or growing toward that number. Then life gets more complicated, particularly if it's a business with a lot of low-paid, low-skill employees. Yeh can certainly imagine that 50-employee threshold becomin' a bit of a barrier, eh? Perhaps cheaper to have multiple 49-person companies than a bigger one. This is one of da areas that could use some thoughtful adjustment. What *should* also happen is that da ACA should contain general premiums for a stretch as a lot of lower-risk young people are added to da insurance rolls and uninsured folks don't have to use emergency care so much. That should yield savings for big employers, who can opt to grow. That's a longer-term effect, though. In short, this thing is a bit of a turkey. A complicated mess that will take quite a bit of time to work out. I was opposed to ACA. But in a lot of ways it's no different than any policy shift. It will cause some disruption as it's implemented and there'll be some confusion, but it isn't the end of da world. If da Republicans give up bein' da Party of No and collaborate a bit on some of da fixes, we might end up with somethin' fairly workable. Beavah

Yah, Brewmeister, I think you're readin' too deep into skeptic's post. He was makin' a point that businesses that cut jobs immediately after an election in a fit of pique are just bein' goofs, and of course they are. That's not good business sense, that's throwin' a tantrum like a 5-year-old. Good business sense would be to wait and see how da final regulations come out, where da loopholes are, and carefully calculatin' what makes most sense. As CalicoPenn points out, da issues with coal at the moment have little to do with regulation and everything to do with da explosion of natural gas supply. Once yeh have a gas well sunk, yeh don't have to pay miners to bring the stuff up, eh? Variable cost is just a fraction of that of coal per unit energy, so of course da coal business is goin' to lay off people. It should. That's economic efficiency. It's tough on coal investors and workers, but them's the breaks. But let me say somethin' about da modern Republican / business school nonsense that yeh opened with. Da notion that human beings are nuthin' more than industrial inputs was never a part of classical conservativism. We're a Christian bunch, us conservatives. There was always an expectation that yeh had a moral obligation to take care of your own and treat folks decently. People would pride themselves on treatin' their workers well, and on buildin' companies responsibly through hard work and providin' value. Da notion that humans are just industrial inputs and that yeh are a Business Titan by leveraging companies up to extract "value" is somethin' that came out of da junk bond bunch in the 80s. Most good businessmen at da time though they were a bunch of [expletive deleted]. Nowadays, those leveraged acquisition turkeys, Romney among 'em, are considered Captains of Industry, even though they haven't ever built a factory or a product, eh? They've just robbed da earned equity of others' labor. That ain't conservativism. It's highbrow theft. Liberals properly object to it because part of what it's stealin' is da sweat equity investment of da workers, who build a company only to be left on da street. Conservatives should also object because that kind of leveraging weakens strong companies and keeps 'em from reinvesting, puttin' America behind foreign countries. It's tradin' long term steady growth for short-term boom and bust, and true conservatives are good businessmen who work for long term steady growth. Many business owners were waiting for the outcome of the elections to gauge the economic outlook for the near future. Nonsense. That's what financiers are lookin' at. Maybe some defense contractors who suck off da government teat. Real businessmen know that da economic outlook in the mid- to long- term has very little to do with da politicians. It has far more to do with stability and da economic health of consumers. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, wow! Ohio 47.2% of House ballots cast for Democrats Only 18.8% of da House delegation elected to represent Ohio are Democrats. Now, to be fair, if da districts were perfectly mixed, yeh could imagine Ohio getting ZERO Democrats elected, eh? Earning 47.2% of da vote in each district and therefore losing every one. So it's a bit different than in Pennsylvania or Michigan where a majority of da public votes Democrat and they still end up with a large majority Republican delegation. That isn't possible without jiggering things. This "possibility of getting ZERO" thing may explain da aversion to solutions, though. Perfect district mixing is da equivalent to winner-take-all, and folks generally don't want that. What we want is somethin' that takes a good stab at both local and proportionate representation. Beavah

"First cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." I'm tryin', Brewmeister, I'm tryin'. In my life, my votes have been at least 75% Republican. In fact, probably more than that, though I'm not a party-line voter. I'm an economic and social conservative of da old school, before we had neocons and tea partiers. Voted Nixon and Ford and Reagan and Bush and Dole. Would happily have voted McCain in 2000, held my nose and voted Bush. I'm speakin' my piece to my fellow conservatives. We have quite a beam in our own eye at da moment. It's up to someone on da other side to remove da mote from da Democrats' eyes. Though I'll grant that they went through quite their own grieving process after 2000. Beavah

They are talking Clinton .vs. Bush for 2016.. With Jeb Bush already stating he will run. Blech! Surely we can do better than feudal dynasties in da United States. Used to be it was only the Kennedy clan in Massachusetts that was into this political nepotism nonsense. America is a vast, great country with wonderful people. I'd like to see anyone else but a pair of political dynasty baby-boomers reliving the arguments of their youth. In such an election, I would write in "NO!". Beavah

You contradict yourself in your own examples. Nope. Think through it, Brewmeister. If yeh have a gerrymandered urban district where yeh have 80% of da population leaning Democrat, then da race is goin' to be decided in da primary. But da primary doesn't have any Republicans voting, eh? So it's easier for outlier Democrats to get da votes. Moderates and swing voters can't team up with da Republicans to select someone more reasonable. Same thing in a district like Bachmann's, eh? That's da main effect. Did yeh watch how Romney ran to the right durin' da primaries? Because if half da American voters aren't there, the more extreme group can have 51% of da vote instead of 26% of it. It gets worse if 49% of da population is electin' 71% of da representation, of course. Essentially, their vote is countin' double, eh? So if da geographics put 'em together, then yeh can easily get a nutter elected. Republican nutter if da Republicans did da gerrymandering; Democrat nutter if da Democrats did it. It's just simple math. It's got nuthin' to do with party or ideology. We've allowed a system that's unfair and tends to be biased toward fringe candidates. Beavah

Yah, so clearly this needs an example, because people just aren't gettin' da concept. Let's take a look at Pennsylvania, one of da worst offenders. Usin' da vote totals from FoxNews at http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2012-house-races/all, looking at elections for House of Representatives, we have: Votes for Democrats: 2,722,560 Votes for Republicans: 2,651,901 So in Pennsylvania, a majority of da population voted for a Democrat for the House of Representatives. That was quite comparable to the votes for President (2,907,448 to 2,619,583), only more people voted for President. You'd expect that at least half of da Pennsylvania delegation to the U.S. House of Representatives would be Democrats then, wouldn't yeh? Nope. Pennsylvania is sending 12 Republicans and 5 Democrats to the House. Popular vote: 50.7% Democrat Actual representation: 29.4% Democrat No matter whether you're a Democrat or Republican, yeh can see this is an issue of fundamental Constitutional intent and fairness. When 51% of da population of a state votes in one direction, they should not end up with only 29% of da representation. That's unconscionable. When yeh look at da actual reason for it, yeh discover that it's just because da districts around Philly and Pittsburgh are jiggered so as to put all da urban and suburban likely Democrat voters together, so that they elect only one representative with 90% of the vote, leavin' da other districts to select Republicans with 55% of the vote. This is da same sort of thing which allows Michelle Bachmann and other noxious outlier representatives to be elected. Beavah

I really think incumbency is the greater factor. I think the data on the stability of control of the House points to that. Certainly, incumbency plays a strong role in House elections, but it's irrelevant in this analysis. 51% of the nation voted for Democrats FOR HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. In their local House election, regardless of incumbency, they pulled the lever for the Democrat. Yet the elected House is only 44% Democrat. That's what yeh have to explain, eh? Da 7% difference between votes and outcome IN HOUSE ELECTIONS. Could it be explained by... -- Quality/popularity of individual candidates No, because quality candidates would yield both a majority of the popular vote and a majority of folks elected. -- Good, old-fashioned campaigning -- James Carville proved this in 1992. No, because good campaigning would yield both a majority of the popular vote and a majority of folks elected. -- Incumbency No, unless a set of da incumbents are able to manipulate the election process so that they can retain their position despite failing to receive a majority of da popular vote. In other words, fraud or gerrymandering. -- Local politics No, unless large fractions of da votes in lots of places went to third-party candidates. There's no evidence of that. -- Money No, unless da money was used to finance election tampering or fraud. That map easily proves how the House of Representatives could easily be one way and the Senate the other, despite the TOTAL popular vote for the House. No gerrymandering required, it's just how we break down geographically. No, because we don't vote for House of Representatives proportionate to amount of land owned. What you suggest would only work if population were spread evenly. Da fact is that most counties in da nation are lightly populated, so seeing a lot of red counties is irrelevant. We vote for House of representatives based on population. What it might mean, though, is that my solution won't work. Just drawin' soap bubble minimum surfaces along county lines might not be enough, because yeh have very dense urban counties? That's a reasonable point. Hard to say. I still think it would be a substantial improvement. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, skeptic, it's just da grieving process, eh? Folks these days have been seein' themselves more as Republicans or Dems than as Americans. So when an election goes da other way, it's no longer a case of, "Ah well, I would have preferred the other guy, but let's roll up our sleeves and get on with it!". It's more like someone in da family/tribe has died. So they have to go through da grieving process. Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, eh? We saw Denial in spades with Karl Rove on election night. We'll see Anger for a stretch, then Bargaining as da Tea Party crowd tries to obstruct everything through a bare majority in da House. That'll be the real test, eh? Because they can get stuck there. Then of course there's Depression. Not everybody goes through da stages at the same rate, dependin' on how attached they were. So we're startin' to see da Depression bit in a few. Hopefully we'll get to Acceptance. We never really got there after da last election, eh? Da notion of electing a Democrat and black man was too much, and some got stuck in Denial - da "birther" crowd in particular. He's not really President, yadda yadda. Maybe this time. At least I have hope. I pray that until we get to "Acceptance" da Secret Service stays sharper than it has been, because as we go through da grieving stages this sort of thing can bring da worst of da nutters out. After all, if yeh really believe the President is a Muslim non-American in league with da lazy Mexican freeloader illegals and liberal elites hell-bent on bankruptin' da nation, spreadin' marijuana use and abortion and denyin' Christ, and takin' away your Constitutional liberties and da guns to defend yourself, then it's not hard to imagine that rhetoric leadin' a more extreme youngster to do somethin' tragic. Grievin' people are self-absorbed, eh? They aren't aware of da potential harm their rhetoric can cause by influencin' the young, naive, and zealous. And that would be the end of conservativism in America for decades, for sure. So I personally wish they'd start behavin' like real Christians and snap out of this soon. B

Yah, yeh just shake your head about some of this stuff. Happily, Congresscritters for da most part don't actually have to do any science. So it's a bit like laughin' because a representative doesn't know how to change a car tire. A bit pathetic, but hopefully most of what he's actually doin' as a representative doesn't require that skill. What's more disturbin' is da Democrats (and many Republicans) who don't actually know anything about budgeting or economics servin' in the House. Inability to do budget math or understand da relative impacts of policy choices should be far more disqualifying. Or worse still, the large lot of 'em who despite cereal box law degrees don't know a lick about writin' law or policy. When yeh know politicians personally (an unavoidable bit of my business), yeh know that da one skill set they have is that they're quite charming or affable as long as yeh take 'em in small doses. Mostly shallow, but they're da center of a dinner party and will remember your name and your interests. Not what yeh want makin' laws or policy decisions. Sometimes, I think we should select legislators da way we select juries. Pull 'em randomly from da population, with a limited ability for any side to reject nutters. Beavah

Nah, Brewmeister, yeh missed da point again. My fault for bein' confusing. If yeh ignore the Electoral College and all other races, and yeh just look at the total of votes case for HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES elections across da country, the POPULAR VOTE for HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES went to the Democrats. In fact, it was pretty close to the same amount that da popular vote went for Obama, so your split-ticket voters split roughly evenly as you'd expect. And yet they only have 44% representation in da House. Take away message: In House elections, representation should closely match da popular vote. That's da Constitutional purpose of the House, to represent da people directly. The fact that da representation in the House is reversed from da popular vote by 7% or so means that GERRYMANDERING IS UNDERMINING DA CONSTITUTION. For an old-school conservative like myself, I find that troubling. Yah, yah, I know da modern Republican Party is all about cheating and playin' games in order to "win." Me, I believe in honor and da Constitution. Da House should represent da people, not be jiggered so that weird nutjob outliers on either side can be selected. So let's fix it, eh? This should be somethin' that all conservatives would agree on, and many decent folk on da liberal side as well. Beavah

Yah, hmmm... let me try answerin' some questions. Could it be that voters actually looked at the candidates and the message and simply found Republican house candidates more compelling? Da point was that da actual numbers of votes were higher in total for Democratic House members. So no, this was not the case. More people voted for Democrats, but Republicans got a significant majority of the seats. That's da odd thing, eh? The House is supposed to offer proportionate representation to da population. This isn't a party thing; it could go da other way if Democrats did the gerrymandering. It's just somethin' that should be fixed out of fairness and honorin' the intent of da Constitution. In my state (NH) more than 50% of the population lives in just 3 counties, we have 10. Theoretically, it is a great idea, practically, it falls on its face. Nope, not at all. Yeh can either extend da same rule to township boundaries in that case, or yeh can simply say that if one county merits two representatives, then the entire county votes for two representatives. The house leaned slightly Democratic before the 2010 election, which probably was a good representation of this country. Presidential Elections is the one that normally the casual citizen wakes up to vote for, then goes to sleep for 4 more years.. I think this was true of Democrats & Republicans.. Yah, moosetracker, yeh do realize we elect the entire House every two years, right? So what happened in 2010 really isn't relevant for this discussion. Da problem is the House doesn't accurately represent da actual voting choices this year. Just an unsubstantiated (and unresearched!) theory: Maybe it has to do with the fact that Dems tend to (generally) dominate the large cities and perhaps are more "dense" with their voting and therefore tend to win those districts with 70-30 or 80-20 splits?? Yah, that would be gerrymandering, eh? The veritable definition of it. Try to confine voters of one party to a single district so as to skew their ultimate representation in Congress lower. I wonder if the difference couldn't be explained by the "all or nothing" the Electorial College? Electoral College has nuthin' to do with it. That's only for the Presidency. More people voted Democrat in House elections overall. Problem with your proposal, Beav, is it will violate the Voting Rights Act. Yah, hmmmm... Most of da country is not in a covered jurisdiction, so I can't see as how da Voting Rights Act would be an issue in most places. Da preclearance provisions for covered jurisdictions might come into play... or not. I suppose it depends on da DOJ. Also remember that SCOTUS has clipped da VRA in some ways (with another case pending). I don't think it would really be an issue, but I might be mistaken in da few covered jurisdictions. ------ Of course, in da end this is tryin' to do what Seattle Pioneer said, eh? Take the politics out of politics. Da thing is, we've managed to do that in other things, eh? Like da formula for actually assigning the number of representatives to each state after da census comes in. As packsaddle says, that's just somethin' anybody can run on a PC, and it avoids most of da gamesmanship. Can't see why states couldn't do the same thing with districts. Beavah

Yah, hmmmm... While various folks try to cut and parse da election results, its seems for da most part we ended up right back where we were. And I got to thinkin' and wonderin' about that. When da Democrat gets the majority of the votes and a substantial majority of the Electoral College, how is it that da House of Representatives stays Republican? Da House is supposed to be the body in the Constitution most representative of and responsive to the People. Funny thing, eh? Then yeh look at da votes, and it appears that more people voted for Democratic candidates for the House than did for Republican candidates. Huh. Most of this, I reckon, is da result of small population states votin' more Republican. States are guaranteed one representative, regardless of whether they have da 700K or so population to merit one. But yeh have to figure that some of it is also due to da absurd district gerrymandering that goes on. That can both skew da results as well as create districts that are far more extreme in their views than da average. It ups da polarization. One wonders if a Pelosi or a Bachmann could be elected in a non-gerrymandered district. Seems like we'd do da nation a favor by promoting state constitutional amendments across da country which required congressional districts to be drawn along county lines in a way that minimizes perimeter to area ratio. Some objective, computable formula to make 'em all nice, easily comprehended slices of a state's population, not some goofy jiggered geometric monstrosity. Beavah

Yah, Backroads, I hear yeh. Da thing of it is, in da grand scheme of things, paperwork doesn't matter much. Scouting volunteers choose to volunteer because they enjoy bein' outdoors, and they enjoy workin' with kids. That's where their heart is. That's where they spend their time. And that's where we want 'em to spend their time, eh? We want 'em to be out in the woods with kids. We want 'em to be planning pack and den meetings and worryin' about canoe trip safety and sittin' with the lad whose parents are splittin' up. That's what really counts. Da paperwork will get done when it gets done. All those of us who serve in support positions, execs and registrars and commissioners and such, we have to recognize that we're here to be supportive, eh? We're here so that those fine men and women can spend their time worryin' about how to teach recognition of poison ivy and how to help the mentally challenged lad be successful in his first Position of Responsibility - without worryin' too much about da paperwork. So yeh take it with charm and good grace, knowin' that your charm and good grace means that somewhere a scoutin' volunteer is spendin' a bit more time doing good things for kids because you've had his back. That thought should be enough to bring a smile whenever yeh need it in dealin' with an upset soul. Beavah

Could there be a case where an employer or college admissions staff member sees, Boys Scouts of America on an application and wonders for a moment if the applicant has any baggage from being abused as a Scout? Yah, I doubt that there's any employer left who would actually blame da victim in that way. Not if they want to stay in business. Could yeh imagine what da fallout would be for an employer who did not give a job to a rape victim because she was a rape victim? B

A seagull poster is one who flies in, drops a bomb, and flies off. Yah, airborneveteran, this is one where yeh quietly say a prayer each night for the lads, then file it away as background information. Yeh don't change how your troop does anything. You don't change how yeh interact with the boys. Yeh want the lads experience with scouting to be normal, eh? Not too standoffish by overhyping YP, not too close by becomin' solicitous of their feelings. Yeh ask permission and tell one or two other key, trusted adults in da program. Yeh want a couple others to be alert, and be ready and informed in case there are any unanticipated behavior issues. There may well be some, eh? Acting out, too angry for da circumstance, too fragile for da circumstance. Hard to say how it goes, eh? Depends where da kid is at. Periodically or whenever yeh feel the need yeh give feedback back to the mom about what you're seein' in terms of their behavior, so that it can be passed along to any counselors involved. That helps, eh? Yeh get to see the lads in a different environment than either mom or school or counselor does, and knowin' what's goin' on helps. At da same time, yeh ask mom if there's anything in particular that she or da counselor feels the troop could be doin'. And yah, yeh want to be extra sensitive if yeh do a youth level YP session. That's one to talk about with mom and counselor ahead of time. Sometimes, depending on where a lad is at an older boy scout could help lead it. Sometimes it's OK for him to just participate, but especially at cub age yeh have to be ready for him to blurt it out to other boys either during or after in small group discussion, or to break down or get teary. Sometimes it's best for 'em to skip that night. So it's "Be Prepared" in full measure, but keep doin' your program da way yeh normally would. And save those few minutes each evening for prayer, eh? There are some things that are just too big for us, and we need to turn 'em over to da Great Scoutmaster of all Scouts. Beavah