Daylight Savings Time

We Weighed Standard Time Against Daylight Savings Time, Which Was Lighter?

Our nonpartisan scoring system looks at 128 societal roles balanced equally for bias for change and status quo. It’s time for the Saturday Keynote when we land each week’s flight of articles on a political flap. Should we finally choose Daylight Savings Time or Standard Time and stop changing the clocks twice a year? Rise and shine, early birds, Standard Time won.

Standard Time?

Standard Time Forever Was the Clear Winner: Prioritizing natural light in the morning aligns with human biology, promoting healthier sleep patterns and increased productivity. It prioritizes health and harmony over powerful special interests and night owl hooting.

Conversely, shifting hours artificially through Permanent Daylight Savings Time increases risks like heart attacks, disrupts circadian rhythms, makes people grumpy, and increases AC energy use as the world grows warmer.

How Did
DST Rise?

Daylight Saving Time (DST) originated during the World Wars to conserve energy by reducing evening artificial lighting. Contrary to myths, DST wasn’t for farmers; most even oppose it. The war-driven need for DST has long passed.

Today, Night owls prefer it lighter into the evening, and certain industries benefit. Crime may be lower during DST, but that’s a band-aid on the problem. The WELCOME Employer Living Wage Tax Credit and/or the P50L Earned Income Tax Credit are systemic solutions to crime, making DST as a crime deterrent moot.

Political Parrots
Never Stop Squawking

Political Parrots have a Key reason they don’t want us to know about because it ruins their argument. We search for these, like a treasure hunt, and sort them using our EMIT format: Emotions, Money, Information, and Timespan. We listen for these key signals in the political noise. It gives us millions of variables, luckily we have POLI THE AI (Political Omnibus Leadership Initiative) to help us sort it all out.


If you’d prefer first to role-play this week’s puzzle, then swoop on over to the…

Puzzle of the Week
Should We End Daylight Savings Time?

Puzzle Drop Introduction
Feeling Jet Lagged? How About Sunsetting (Ending) DST?

If We Could Turn Back Time (and End DST)

Politically Strange Bedfellows
Which Odd Couples Are Rising When the Sun Doesn’t Shine?

Political Digital Twin
Lean on Your Political Digital Twin Before Political Parrots

BOX Score
Nonpartisan Scores for Standard Time v Daylight Savings Time

Permanent Standard Time
Nonpartisan Score
The Clear Winner

POLI forecasted support as a Near Consensus. Our editors were a bit less convinced; we predict a 71% ±5 (13 roles) Strong Supermajority of roles in this country to support Permanent Standard Time, including a majority of each of the four sides of the political tablemaking this a US Public Policy Leaderboard (US-PPL) worthy idea. 

50% – 59% Majority
60% – 66% Supermajority
67% – 74% Strong Supermajority
75% -79% Vast Supermajority
80% – 89% Near Consensus
90% and up Near Unanimous

By Contrast

Permanent Daylight Savings Time scored 66% ±7% (18 roles) with only a majority of each of three, NOT four sides of the political table. So, Permanent Daylight Savings Time failed to make it onto the US Public Policy Leaderboard.

SCOTUS’s approval rating is 40%,
the media is 27%, and
Congress is 13%.

The average score of the policies on the PolicyKeys™ US Public Policy Leaderboard (US-PPL) is 72%, with many above 80%—Politics 4.0 is already 2x to 5x better model of US political sentiment and direction than politics as usual.

What’s Our Shared
Politics 4.0 Political DNA (ACGT)
says about Permanent Standard Time

Poetically, our Political DNA is also ACGT, comprised of Abundance, Commerce, Governance, and Thrift. See more about this below in the Methodology section.


Regarding Abundance, Permanent Standard Time respects our biological needs by syncing with natural daylight. Some say we’ll miss extra evening light, yet prioritizing our body clocks can enhance overall productivity and health, which in turn leads to better relationships with family, friends, coworkers, and customers.


On Thrift, the shift to Permanent Standard Time cuts out the confusion and cost of changing clocks, which is like digging holes and filling them back in. Critics point to more shining hours in the day for work and play, but the true waste lies in the health repercussions and related expenses from disrupted sleep patterns.


For Governance, Permanent Standard Time means consistency in legal and social timekeeping. There are concerns about shorter evenings affecting activities, but a single, consistent standard simplifies syncing with the rest of the world in a unified way. A much needed metaphor in these trying times.


In Commerce, stability is key, and Permanent Standard Time ensures predictability for businesses. Some argue that this could negatively affect spending habits, but some businesses will benefit and others will not, which means Daylight Savings Time is just another way for the government to pick winners and losers based on the whims of those in power this session.


Choosing Permanent Standard Time aligns with natural rhythms, supporting Abundance, Thrift, Governance, and Commerce. It’s not just about more daylight in the morning or evening; it’s about predictable, stable timekeeping that simplifies life, supports our biological needs, and provides a steady environment for business and governance. This standard could be a rare constant we all need in an ever-changing world.

It’s also yet another example of how Politics 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 revel in the tyrannies of a loud minority forcing their values and ethics onto the silent supermajority. In this case, a congress of night owls trying to force through Daylight Savings Time.


Politics 1.0 is each party wanting to be a one-party system. Politics 2.0 is the two-party gridlock that blocks the silent supermajority from getting what they need. Politics 3.0 is all the noise from special interest groups trying to influence us to see things their way. Politics 4.0 is to rank solutions with a nonpartisan score and let the best ideas rise up the leaderboard so the people can choose.

Our One-Page Narrative Tool, game board, and AI are based on a ground truth:

There’s a time to save
and a time to spend,
a time for freedom
and a time for laws.
Where can we agree?

This yields four legs of the political table: Abundance, Thrift, Governance, and Commerce, poetically our Political DNA, ACGT.

A Level
Playing Field

The four sides of the table are…

Abundance Governance (AG)
National Public Sector and NGOs,

Abundance Commerce (AC)
Technology and New Businesses,

Thrift Government (TG)
Local Municipalities, Guilds, and Consumers, and

Thrift Commerce (TC)
Established Supply Chains and Jobs.

Each side has a bias for change and a bias for the status quo. We scan these eight Information Walls for Key YES and NO Reasons, no cherry-picking.

Treasure Hunt

We search for solutions with the highest hypothetical nonpartisan rating. Something that would solve 80% of the problem with the simplest 20% solution. The Pareto principle, hence a parrot-topia.

The Political Parrots have a Key reason they don’t want us to know about because it ruins their argument. We search for these, like a treasure hunt, and sort them using our EMIT format: Emotions, Money, Information, and Timespan. We listen for these key signals in the political noise.

Key Reasons can look similar, so we edit for redundancy and look for errors, omissions, and innovations.

Political Parrots say the same thing over and over and over again. We look to filter out the GRIFTERS, Gaslighting, Red-herrings, Idolizing, False-dilemmas, Tunnel-vision, Exclusions, Reductions, and Straw-man arguments. 

Birds of a Feather AI

Once the Key Reasons are set, we prescore the puzzle using the Birds of a Feather AI for loose ties to beliefs, attitudes, values, and ethics. Over 16 million combinations are possible for the 128 roles. The game board starts balanced at zero, with an equal bias for change and the status quo.

We then prescore the puzzle using 56 arch-type roles that best embody each of the 56 loose ties. This yields a general bias for change or status quo and reveals ties.

The editors review all 128 roles for specific reasons and overrule the general AI where necessary. These are noted in the Tuesday Tiebreaker article.

Then, we score the puzzle on all four sides of the Political Table: eight Information Walls, sixteen Subcultural Windows, sixteen Bias Columns, and sixteen Influence Rows.


When the scoring is done, a second AI looks for inconsistencies using the SAT9 AI filter (Situational Assessment Tool). This is 256 ‘supreme courts’ where each role is the chief justice in a presumed 5-4 and 4-5 bench. This generates a ± error margin.

The engine for the AI is our One Page Narrative Tool (OPNT) that we gamified for role-playing at We call our AI, POLI for Political Omnibus Leadership Initiative.

You can read more about PolicyKeys™ in the upcoming book, Politics 4.0: How Gamification, AI, and National Idea Leaderboards Can Help You Depolarize the World. The Observatory of Public Sector Innovation (OPSI) at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has recognized PolicyKeys™ for digital engagement.


new PolicyKeys™
Where Can We Agree?® puzzle 
drops every 
Monday at 7 a.m. Eastern at

PolicyKeys™ Where Can We Agree? is a real-life role-playing game. Each week, there are sixteen sets of eight ‘rival’ roles. Sit awhile in each of their eight chairs and predict whether a majority of people in those roles would say Yes or No to the week’s question.

The best ideas land on the US Public Policy Leaderboard (US-PPL) if a majority of each of the four sides of the political table agree. You can play this week’s puzzle at

Cue the
Patriotic Music

Imagine an America not paralyzed by political squawking. A Parrot-otopia oasis in a desert of division. Where the sounds of the silent super-majority drown out the droning of the hyper-partisan parrots.

We’ll be freed from the cages of entrenched ideology to fly higher in the big sky of American beliefs, attitudes, values, and ethics. To boldly go where no political parrot has gone before—rating solutions with a nonpartisan score.


Where Can We Agree? 
(Why Don’t You Want To Know?)


DST Increases Heart Attacks 24%
BMJ Journals

US Exports to the East and West about Equal
Trading Economics

What Would Happen If We Got Rid of Daylight Saving Time?
Reader’s Digest

It’s Time to Put DST to Bed
Modern Farmer

Does DST Save Energy?

DST Time’s Side Effects Prevention
Am Trust Financial

Fighting Crime With DST

Daylight Savings Time is Actually a Good Thing
Popular Mechanics

Standard Time is Better

71% Want to Stop Changing the Clock Twice a Year

Treasure Chest of Sources In Favor of Standard Time
Save Standard Time

The Case for Permanent Standard Time
The Hill

Daylight Savings Time is Controversial
Business Insider

Shedding Light on DST Revenues
JP Morgan Chase

10 Things You Didn’t Know About DST
Country Living

Texas Votes for Permanent DST
Texas Tribune

DST is Hurting Your Health & Should Be Abolished

DST was once known as War Time
Department of Defense

DST is Good For Business

It takes guts to look at things from all four sides of the political table.