[OT] Who should you vote for this November?

[MattPie]

I had to read the evolution question twice because I thought my brain had just imploded... Thankfully in the more choices part it had what I was looking for "Evolution is a fact, not a theory" and now all is once again right with the world.

 

Strictly speaking, it *is* a theory since there's no direct evidence from the really distant past. But it's a theory on the same level as gravity, as in it's supported by every experiment that has been tried. You can't prove a scientific theory, only disprove it. And we haven't found a way to disprove evolution, or gravity for that matter, yet.

 

My top four in order: Democrat, Green, Libertarian, Republican. Not really a surprise. I am socially liberal (radical tolerance, as my girlfriend calls it). In some ways, I'd like to be financially conservative but I think we'd end up with the exploitation of the Gilded Age if you don't redistribute *some* of the wealth with taxes and whatnot. And I can't make peace with the train of thought that I should keep a bit of money thru lower taxes by denying people affordable medical care.

[darksabre]

Strictly speaking, it *is* a theory since there's no direct evidence from the really distant past. But it's a theory on the same level as gravity, as in it's supported by every experiment that has been tried. You can't prove a scientific theory, only disprove it. And we haven't found a way to disprove evolution, or gravity for that matter, yet.

 

My top four in order: Democrat, Green, Libertarian, Republican. Not really a surprise. I am socially liberal (radical tolerance, as my girlfriend calls it). In some ways, I'd like to be financially conservative but I think we'd end up with the exploitation of the Gilded Age if you don't redistribute *some* of the wealth with taxes and whatnot. And I can't make peace with the train of thought that I should keep a bit of money thru lower taxes by denying people affordable medical care.

 

Somehow I'm not surprised we fell in the same order.

 

 

 

80% Democratic

 

78% Green

 

59% Libertarian

 

12% Republican

 

I'll be honest, I expected to be a lot more Republican than I turned out to be. Perhaps I'm more liberal than I thought?

 

Very interesting little survey tool. Thanks for posting it, weave.

 

89% D

81% G

51% L

30% R

 

Interesting that I agree with Mitt Romney on "no major policy issues", I'm pretty sure GOP primary voters picked him just to screw with me...

 

Me too! No wonder I'm even more turned off by the Republican candidates than I was with McCain. I liked McCain. Romney does nothing for me.

 

Obama - 80% (higher than I expected)

Jill Stein - 78% (I don't even know who she is)

Gary Johnson - 65% (Liked his interview on the Daily Show, looking into him further as he and I seem to have similar ideas)

Ron Paul - 53% (Not surprised here, I like him, but not as much as I would like to.)

[TheMatrix31]

I don't need a test to tell me who to vote for.

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

Strictly speaking, it *is* a theory since there's no direct evidence from the really distant past. But it's a theory on the same level as gravity, as in it's supported by every experiment that has been tried. You can't prove a scientific theory, only disprove it. And we haven't found a way to disprove evolution, or gravity for that matter, yet.

 

My top four in order: Democrat, Green, Libertarian, Republican. Not really a surprise. I am socially liberal (radical tolerance, as my girlfriend calls it). In some ways, I'd like to be financially conservative but I think we'd end up with the exploitation of the Gilded Age if you don't redistribute *some* of the wealth with taxes and whatnot. And I can't make peace with the train of thought that I should keep a bit of money thru lower taxes by denying people affordable medical care.

 

The fiscal conservative standpoint isn't about denying services and basic needs....it's about making it efficient and allowing self choice. There are neccessary evils that we need the government for.....military, police, education, medical, retirement, etc......but under the same guise it is pretty evident that the management of those programs is verry inefficient. What is the incentive in just about any government job to be a go-getter? I bet if you would ask, many take jobs in that sector because they are fairly secure, and have good benefits such as medical and retirement......which compounds those problems because those are sectors also very hevily government influenced. Over time those government programs go exponential in their faults and we end up in a whole lot of doo-doo.

 

That's why we have 2nd amendment support....we can't very well defend ourselves against an intercontinental missile, but when the military or police are inefficent or stretched thin, we can protect ourselves to the best of our ability. Education....not everyone can afford it....but instead of continuously pumping money into government run programs, allow vouchers to those who would like a private education for more efficient learning according to their desires. We have Medicare and Medicaid which is run wild....and now you are about to throw tens of millions on top of an already backlogged system while at the same time removing incentive for medical staff to invest in themselves. Retirement? Mark my words.....within the next few years this is going to be the biggest calamity in history. When people finally understand just how underfunded everything is along with increasing debt load.....once the boulder starts to roll downhill, it will be exposed fast and furiously. If you are 50 and over...prepare to receive 50% on the dollar if you are lucky. 25-50?......keep paying in full and see 20%...under? Good luck, there will probably need to be a new system installed. It doesn't matter who you are....on SS....a government employee....you think you are safe in a 401K? They will eventually force you into treasuries "for your safety". It has to happen...either that or a full debt jubilee....which I don't think those in control would enjoy seeing.

 

So for the post office and billions of loses, there is FedEx and UPS. For school #54 there is Canisius. For a fatigued military and stretched police force there is a shotgun and .22, or a permit and a 38 special. For social security and medicare....there is an S corp and 50% extra premium needed to be paid for solid insurance. There are ways to still take control for many...but those able to do so are shrinking fast.

 

Everybody wants the same thing....just have different viewpoints on who is best to manage. I think everyone is also willing to admit power and greed have gutted the regular 90% of us out there, and the disconnect is growing. Not every Fortune 500 CEO is a heartless DB, and not every local union head is corrupt....but it is safe to say both sides have a right not to trust those in charge.

 

It's all a big cycle. We've had a great run. Bush sold out and offered TARP, etc. Obama sold out and is just as big business friendly as Bush for the most part. We just haven't been able to get the momentum of TRUE change fast enough to save ourselves. It will be more about preservation....and that is a scary thought when you understand just how many people are reliant on other aspects for day to day normalcy.

 

I really wish there was a true #3 choice out there with traction. I'd vote for Ron Paul in a second on many issues, but it just isn't there right now.

[Claude_Verret]

91% Libertarian

84% Republican

79% Democratic

56% Green

 

D and R, are more the same than they are different despite the partisan bickering that they fuel among the electorate.

[FogBat]

91% Libertarian

84% Republican

79% Democratic

56% Green

 

D and R, are more the same than they are different despite the partisan bickering that they fuel among the electorate.

To reply to this bolded section intelligently, I'm finding this to be very difficult to disagree with.

[Weave]

91% Libertarian

84% Republican

79% Democratic

56% Green

 

D and R, are more the same than they are different despite the partisan bickering that they fuel among the electorate.

 

Preach it, brother !

[LastPommerFan]

/snip/

I really wish there was a true #3 choice out there with traction. I'd vote for Ron Paul in a second on many issues, but it just isn't there right now.

 

The system is rigged. a true #3 only guarantees that the party they least agree with wins the election. We need to change the system, and the only way to do that will be to amend the constitution, an the only way this will happen is if the state legislatures call for an amendment via convention, because the Congress will never enact the following:

 

1. Mandate congressional representation proportional to 100,000 people

 

This would result in about 3,000 representatives, compared to the 435 now who represent 800,000 people per district. Each rep would be directly accountable to the people who elect them. In addition, it would eliminate the control each rep has in congress. The house would be returned to its original intent of as directly representing the people as possible. The logistical issues of a 3,000 member house are easily mitigated by modern technology. This is the key to getting national legitimacy to thrid parties, as they will find it much easier to run in smaller congressional districts.

 

2. Congressional Term Limits: Once you have served 9 years in congress (either house) you are no longer eligible to run for office.

 

5 terms in the house, 2 in the senate, or some combination there of. If a member served in the house for 4 terms then won a senate seat, they would be in office for 14 years, which would be the max. This would decrease the entrenched power of lifetime reps like the ironically named John Dingle and Bill Young, who have been "clinging" to power for more than 40 years. It would also lessen the ability of non-voting interests to maintain special relationships with the members of congress.

 

Both of these reduce the power of each individual congressman. So there is approximately a zero percent chance that the amendment will be proposed by congress, the only way will be for the 2/3 of the state legislatures to force the amendment be put up for ratification. And many state reps have congressional aspirations, so even that will be hard to achieve.

[TrueBlueGED]

91% Libertarian

84% Republican

79% Democratic

56% Green

 

D and R, are more the same than they are different despite the partisan bickering that they fuel among the electorate.

 

If anything, it's the opposite of that. Ds and Rs have been becoming increasingly polarized since the 60s/70s, and the trend isn't stopping. On the other hand, the argument has been made that the American public is primarily somewhere in the middle, and only appear polarized because they are responding to increasingly polarized choices offered by the political elites (I don't necessarily buy this argument....but higher levels of elite polarization over the last 40 years is basically a fact).

 

 

The system is rigged. a true #3 only guarantees that the party they least agree with wins the election. We need to change the system, and the only way to do that will be to amend the constitution, an the only way this will happen is if the state legislatures call for an amendment via convention, because the Congress will never enact the following:

 

1. Mandate congressional representation proportional to 100,000 people

 

This would result in about 3,000 representatives, compared to the 435 now who represent 800,000 people per district. Each rep would be directly accountable to the people who elect them. In addition, it would eliminate the control each rep has in congress. The house would be returned to its original intent of as directly representing the people as possible. The logistical issues of a 3,000 member house are easily mitigated by modern technology. This is the key to getting national legitimacy to thrid parties, as they will find it much easier to run in smaller congressional districts.

 

2. Congressional Term Limits: Once you have served 9 years in congress (either house) you are no longer eligible to run for office.

 

5 terms in the house, 2 in the senate, or some combination there of. If a member served in the house for 4 terms then won a senate seat, they would be in office for 14 years, which would be the max. This would decrease the entrenched power of lifetime reps like the ironically named John Dingle and Bill Young, who have been "clinging" to power for more than 40 years. It would also lessen the ability of non-voting interests to maintain special relationships with the members of congress.

 

Both of these reduce the power of each individual congressman. So there is approximately a zero percent chance that the amendment will be proposed by congress, the only way will be for the 2/3 of the state legislatures to force the amendment be put up for ratification. And many state reps have congressional aspirations, so even that will be hard to achieve.

 

1) If you think the current Congress sucks, a Congress of 3000 representatives would be exponentially worse. They'd make current gridlock look like an open country road. I know what you're getting at, but that would be the quintessential example of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

 

2) Term limits carry with them a whole bunch of unintended consequences. Firstly, long-tenured representatives actually represent the preferences of their constituents better than less experienced representatives. There's a reason incumbency is so powerful, and it's way more than just name recognition. Secondly, it opens up shirking in the final term--once the incentive of re-election is removed, the representative/Senator will have years to do whatever in the hell they want without repercussion. Third, you're going to have a lower quality of candidate in the first place. If there's no career path in elected office, some of the best candidates will simply remain in the private sector or the bureaucracy. And lastly, it may actually increase the influence of special interests. If a politician knows he/she will have to find employment in a few years, there's a much greater incentive to do favors for specific industries so they have somewhere to go once their term limit hits.

[LastPommerFan]

If anything, it's the opposite of that. Ds and Rs have been becoming increasingly polarized since the 60s/70s, and the trend isn't stopping. On the other hand, the argument has been made that the American public is primarily somewhere in the middle, and only appear polarized because they are responding to increasingly polarized choices offered by the political elites (I don't necessarily buy this argument....but higher levels of elite polarization over the last 40 years is basically a fact).

 

 

 

 

1) If you think the current Congress sucks, a Congress of 3000 representatives would be exponentially worse. They'd make current gridlock look like an open country road. I know what you're getting at, but that would be the quintessential example of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

 

2) Term limits carry with them a whole bunch of unintended consequences. Firstly, long-tenured representatives actually represent the preferences of their constituents better than less experienced representatives. There's a reason incumbency is so powerful, and it's way more than just name recognition. Secondly, it opens up shirking in the final term--once the incentive of re-election is removed, the representative/Senator will have years to do whatever in the hell they want without repercussion. Third, you're going to have a lower quality of candidate in the first place. If there's no career path in elected office, some of the best candidates will simply remain in the private sector or the bureaucracy. And lastly, it may actually increase the influence of special interests. If a politician knows he/she will have to find employment in a few years, there's a much greater incentive to do favors for specific industries so they have somewhere to go once their term limit hits.

 

1) there is never "gridlock" in the house. They have simple majority rules and debate limits. They've passed a repeal of the Affordable Care Act 33 times in 18 months without a problem. I'm not talking about expanding the Senate.

 

2) The bolded part is EXACTLY what I'm trying to get to, and the italicized part is pretty easily policed. I don't by the quality of candidate issue. I don't think anyone in the last 30 years has said, I don't want to run for President because of the term limits. Same with any of the 15 state legislatures with term limits. I want it to be about public service, not career. Career in the Beuracracy is fine, that's where the expertise is needed. And the "shirking" of the last term is bogus. Lame Duck congress/presidents get just as much if not more done than the rest. Right now the house basically starts campaigning in january after they are elected. having a district 1/8th the size of the current districts will reduce the amount of fundraising needed and time spent campaigning and not governing.

 

I get that there are downsides to my proposal, IMHO, they don't outweigh the benefits.

[Taro T]

If anything, it's the opposite of that. Ds and Rs have been becoming increasingly polarized since the 60s/70s, and the trend isn't stopping. On the other hand, the argument has been made that the American public is primarily somewhere in the middle, and only appear polarized because they are responding to increasingly polarized choices offered by the political elites (I don't necessarily buy this argument....but higher levels of elite polarization over the last 40 years is basically a fact).

 

 

 

 

1) If you think the current Congress sucks, a Congress of 3000 representatives would be exponentially worse. They'd make current gridlock look like an open country road. I know what you're getting at, but that would be the quintessential example of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

 

2) Term limits carry with them a whole bunch of unintended consequences. Firstly, long-tenured representatives actually represent the preferences of their constituents better than less experienced representatives. There's a reason incumbency is so powerful, and it's way more than just name recognition. Secondly, it opens up shirking in the final term--once the incentive of re-election is removed, the representative/Senator will have years to do whatever in the hell they want without repercussion. Third, you're going to have a lower quality of candidate in the first place. If there's no career path in elected office, some of the best candidates will simply remain in the private sector or the bureaucracy. And lastly, it may actually increase the influence of special interests. If a politician knows he/she will have to find employment in a few years, there's a much greater incentive to do favors for specific industries so they have somewhere to go once their term limit hits.

To continue on in addition to your 'lastly;' by having term limits, the unelected staffers that currently do all the real legwork will now have exponentially more experience than their bosses and all that much less accountability to those that hire their bosses (and pay their salaries). (Them's that hire their bosses would be voters, for those slow ones keeping score at home, btw.)

[TrueBlueGED]

1) there is never "gridlock" in the house. They have simple majority rules and debate limits. They've passed a repeal of the Affordable Care Act 33 times in 18 months without a problem. I'm not talking about expanding the Senate.

 

2) The bolded part is EXACTLY what I'm trying to get to, and the italicized part is pretty easily policed. I don't by the quality of candidate issue. I don't think anyone in the last 30 years has said, I don't want to run for President because of the term limits. Same with any of the 15 state legislatures with term limits. I want it to be about public service, not career. Career in the Beuracracy is fine, that's where the expertise is needed. And the "shirking" of the last term is bogus. Lame Duck congress/presidents get just as much if not more done than the rest. Right now the house basically starts campaigning in january after they are elected. having a district 1/8th the size of the current districts will reduce the amount of fundraising needed and time spent campaigning and not governing.

 

I get that there are downsides to my proposal, IMHO, they don't outweigh the benefits.

 

1) You don't think it would be harder to whip 1501 people in line than 218? Not to mention the actual process of committees, and amendments, and hearings, etc etc etc. A 3000 person legislature is just completely unworkable in a number of ways.

 

2) This may come off as snarky, but most of what you "dont' buy" has been demonstrated through research. If you don't want to believe me, fine, but I didn't just pull these arguments out of my backside.

[LastPommerFan]

To continue on in addition to your 'lastly;' by having term limits, the unelected staffers that currently do all the real legwork will [a] now have exponentially more experience than their bosses and all that much less accountability to those that hire their bosses (and pay their salaries). (Them's that hire their bosses would be voters, for those slow ones keeping score at home, btw.)

 

I get that [a] could occur in many cases, I don't understand how would necessarily result from that. The average length of service for representative is already at 11-ish years, so this doesn't effect the average rep as much as it affects the entrenched reps who wind up being the powerful committee chairs and ranking members.

 

Would you argue for a reduction to 218 congressmen to reduce these problems? or has the government magically hit the sweet spot with 435?

[TrueBlueGED]

To continue on in addition to your 'lastly;' by having term limits, the unelected staffers that currently do all the real legwork will now have exponentially more experience than their bosses and all that much less accountability to those that hire their bosses (and pay their salaries). (Them's that hire their bosses would be voters, for those slow ones keeping score at home, btw.)

 

Great point.

[Claude_Verret]

If anything, it's the opposite of that. Ds and Rs have been becoming increasingly polarized since the 60s/70s, and the trend isn't stopping. On the other hand, the argument has been made that the American public is primarily somewhere in the middle, and only appear polarized because they are responding to increasingly polarized choices offered by the political elites (I don't necessarily buy this argument....but higher levels of elite polarization over the last 40 years is basically a fact).

 

I agree with all of the above in how Ds and R's campaign. How they govern is a completely different story.

[Weave]

The system is rigged. a true #3 only guarantees that the party they least agree with wins the election. We need to change the system, and the only way to do that will be to amend the constitution, an the only way this will happen is if the state legislatures call for an amendment via convention, because the Congress will never enact the following:

 

1. Mandate congressional representation proportional to 100,000 people

 

This would result in about 3,000 representatives, compared to the 435 now who represent 800,000 people per district. Each rep would be directly accountable to the people who elect them. In addition, it would eliminate the control each rep has in congress. The house would be returned to its original intent of as directly representing the people as possible. The logistical issues of a 3,000 member house are easily mitigated by modern technology. This is the key to getting national legitimacy to thrid parties, as they will find it much easier to run in smaller congressional districts.

 

2. Congressional Term Limits: Once you have served 9 years in congress (either house) you are no longer eligible to run for office.

 

5 terms in the house, 2 in the senate, or some combination there of. If a member served in the house for 4 terms then won a senate seat, they would be in office for 14 years, which would be the max. This would decrease the entrenched power of lifetime reps like the ironically named John Dingle and Bill Young, who have been "clinging" to power for more than 40 years. It would also lessen the ability of non-voting interests to maintain special relationships with the members of congress.

 

Both of these reduce the power of each individual congressman. So there is approximately a zero percent chance that the amendment will be proposed by congress, the only way will be for the 2/3 of the state legislatures to force the amendment be put up for ratification. And many state reps have congressional aspirations, so even that will be hard to achieve.

 

The pension costs associated with that would be immense.

[LastPommerFan]

1) You don't think it would be harder to whip 1501 people in line than 218? Not to mention the actual process of committees, and amendments, and hearings, etc etc etc. A 3000 person legislature is just completely unworkable in a number of ways.

 

2) This may come off as snarky, but most of what you "dont' buy" has been demonstrated through research. If you don't want to believe me, fine, but I didn't just pull these arguments out of my backside.

 

1) no harder than it is to whip millions in line in every state that has referendum and/or initiative.

 

2) I'm willing to learn, point me in the direction of the research.

[TrueBlueGED]

I agree with all of the above in how Ds and R's campaign. How they govern is a completely different story.

 

Very true, but the difference in governing and campaigning is largely due to how the policy making process works. It's not that ideologues choose to moderate themselves once elected, it's that the system forces policy to be more moderate than they want to be.

[LastPommerFan]

The pension costs associated with that would be immense.

 

If you turned over the entire house, every election, and the average age was 45, and you offered $100k/yr pension for all former congressmen regardless of length of service, effective the day they leave office, and they all outlived the average lifespan by 5 years, it would cost a maximum of $12Biliion/yr. That's not that significant in the grand scope, and the pensions would be less than that. A generous $20k/year pension per term served, effective at age 60 would cost a max of $1.5B/yr assuming an 85 year lifespan.

[Weave]

If anything, it's the opposite of that. Ds and Rs have been becoming increasingly polarized since the 60s/70s, and the trend isn't stopping. On the other hand, the argument has been made that the American public is primarily somewhere in the middle, and only appear polarized because they are responding to increasingly polarized choices offered by the political elites (I don't necessarily buy this argument....but higher levels of elite polarization over the last 40 years is basically a fact).

 

I can't speak to whether or not the rhetoric has gotten worse (I wasn't politically aware until probably sometime in the 1980's), and I'll agree that the platforms for R's and D's are very, very polar, but I find that the vast bulk of the actual "things" they do (as opposed to words) are much more similar than different and flip flop at times of convenience as well.

[TrueBlueGED]

1) no harder than it is to whip millions in line in every state that has referendum and/or initiative.

 

2) I'm willing to learn, point me in the direction of the research.

 

Just toss "term limits" into a google scholar search (I have access to most journals and can email you a pdf of any article you're really interested in reading) or look on Amazon for books (published by a university press to avoid garbage). In truth, there's valid arguments on both sides of the term limit debate as I'm sure you'll see if you decide to really look into this stuff. Generally my stance on term limits comes more from legislative literature than term limit literature....the system of representation in America works a lot better than some people think it does. Individual congressmen do a great job of representing their constituencies' preferences, and national legislation tends to be in line with the ideological direction of the country at any given time. The problems that term limits seek to fix, in my opinion, aren't necessarily problems at all--it's just a bunch of normative arguments. People hate career politicians....but if career politicians are doing the job effectively, why shouldn't they be allowed to keep their position?

 

 

I can't speak to whether or not the rhetoric has gotten worse (I wasn't politically aware until probably sometime in the 1980's), and I'll agree that the platforms for R's and D's are very, very polar, but I find that the vast bulk of the actual "things" they do (as opposed to words) are much more similar than different and flip flop at times of convenience as well.

 

Which is true, but that's largely due to the system. For example, liberals in Congress wanted a single payer healthcare system, but that obviously didn't happen. Is that because their desire for a single payer system was purely rhetorical or a misrepresentation of their platform? Not at all, the system simply doesn't allow for that kind of sweeping change. The parties are every bit as far apart as they appear to be, but the system forces them to defect from their ideal points.

[LastPommerFan]

Just toss "term limits" into a google scholar search (I have access to most journals and can email you a pdf of any article you're really interested in reading) or look on Amazon for books (published by a university press to avoid garbage). In truth, there's valid arguments on both sides of the term limit debate as I'm sure you'll see if you decide to really look into this stuff. Generally my stance on term limits comes more from legislative literature than term limit literature....the system of representation in America works a lot better than some people think it does. Individual congressmen do a great job of representing their constituencies' preferences, and national legislation tends to be in line with the ideological direction of the country at any given time. The problems that term limits seek to fix, in my opinion, aren't necessarily problems at all--it's just a bunch of normative arguments. People hate career politicians....but if career politicians are doing the job effectively, why shouldn't they be allowed to keep their position?

 

I'll take a look, Political Science non-ficiton is one of my favorite summer reads (but that's for another thread!)

 

Incidentally, are/were you a political science student? is that where the PhD comes in?

[MattPie]

The fiscal conservative standpoint isn't about denying services and basic needs....it's about making it efficient and allowing self choice. There are neccessary evils that we need the government for.....military, police, education, medical, retirement, etc......but under the same guise it is pretty evident that the management of those programs is verry inefficient. What is the incentive in just about any government job to be a go-getter? I bet if you would ask, many take jobs in that sector because they are fairly secure, and have good benefits such as medical and retirement......which compounds those problems because those are sectors also very hevily government influenced. Over time those government programs go exponential in their faults and we end up in a whole lot of doo-doo.

 

True, being fiscal conservative isn't on the surface about denying services. But it's (in my layman understanding) about letting the market and private enterprise provide services, and market will certainly fail to provide services in some cases. Medical care is a prefect example: if private enterprise can provide low-cost medical care, how come it hasn't already?

 

There's just things that private enterprise can't do well, I think we all just disagree on where that line falls. FWIW, I'm all for regulations in the right places rather than actual government services, but regulation is almost as dirty a word as "government service" to most fiscal conservatives.

[TrueBlueGED]

I'll take a look, Political Science non-ficiton is one of my favorite summer reads (but that's for another thread!)

 

Incidentally, are/were you a political science student? is that where the PhD comes in?

 

Current student, entering my fifth (and hopefully last) year. Course work finished, comprehensive exams passed, currently working on my dissertation which ideally will be finished for conferment next June.

[LastPommerFan]

Current student, entering my fifth (and hopefully last) year. Course work finished, comprehensive exams passed, currently working on my dissertation which ideally will be finished for conferment next June.

 

Nice, It was an honest toss up between poli-sci/law and engineering when I was entering college. Ultimately, I chose engineering under the hope that it would lead to a more stable income/home life for my family (I was already practically engaged at the time). So far, I don't regret it, but I do love me a good bout of politics/policy.