your opinion please
Discussions of two separate topics came floating at me over the radio waves this morning:
1) Lower the drinking age. Some say back to 18. Some say to 19 to keep booze out of high schools. Some say 18 but require that drivers 18-20 have 0.0 blood alcohol content. Some say leave it at 21.
2) Some Californians want to change the electoral college system from winner-take-all to electors voting by their congressional district, essentially enabling the state to split its electoral votes. See the CNN article about it. (Try not to make up your mind right away. I think the title of the about this is a bit too polarizing because, as it says lower in the article, Democrats have suggested the same thing in other states.)
I'll edit this entry later to post my opinions. What do you think?
Edit: My opinions
1. 18. Beef up punishments for buying it and giving it to minors to keep it out of high schools (not that it's out of high schools now). I kinda like the idea of 0.00 BAC for 18-20 year old drivers, but that might be a bit extreme. Maybe 0.04? I mean, if I'm 20, have a single beer and go driving an hour later and I blow 0.01, that should not be cause for major punishment. It could also be graduated by age. Anyway, the point is that raising it to 21 hasn't helped, it makes drinking a Big Deal, which it shouldn't be, and delays the age in which people can start learning to drink responsibly. Not to mention the age-old (no pun intended) argument that if you're old enough to die for your country, you should be able to drink a beer.
2. I totally agree with this. The winner-take-all idea is too much of an abstraction. I still think an abstraction needs to be in place, but not at the level it's at now. the congressional district idea is a fairer compromise.
1) Lower the drinking age. Some say back to 18. Some say to 19 to keep booze out of high schools. Some say 18 but require that drivers 18-20 have 0.0 blood alcohol content. Some say leave it at 21.
2) Some Californians want to change the electoral college system from winner-take-all to electors voting by their congressional district, essentially enabling the state to split its electoral votes. See the CNN article about it. (Try not to make up your mind right away. I think the title of the about this is a bit too polarizing because, as it says lower in the article, Democrats have suggested the same thing in other states.)
I'll edit this entry later to post my opinions. What do you think?
Edit: My opinions
1. 18. Beef up punishments for buying it and giving it to minors to keep it out of high schools (not that it's out of high schools now). I kinda like the idea of 0.00 BAC for 18-20 year old drivers, but that might be a bit extreme. Maybe 0.04? I mean, if I'm 20, have a single beer and go driving an hour later and I blow 0.01, that should not be cause for major punishment. It could also be graduated by age. Anyway, the point is that raising it to 21 hasn't helped, it makes drinking a Big Deal, which it shouldn't be, and delays the age in which people can start learning to drink responsibly. Not to mention the age-old (no pun intended) argument that if you're old enough to die for your country, you should be able to drink a beer.
2. I totally agree with this. The winner-take-all idea is too much of an abstraction. I still think an abstraction needs to be in place, but not at the level it's at now. the congressional district idea is a fairer compromise.