Time Is on My Side?* The Debate Over Daylight Saving Time and How It May Be the Imperfectly Perfect Policy
President-elect Donald Trump has thrown himself into the heated debate over daylight saving time, declaring his support for abolishing it in favor of a permanent standard time and reigniting the age-old controversy over whether this biannual clock-changing ritual should be scrapped, retained, or replaced with a permanent system.
Americans agree with President Trump and don’t like changing their clocks twice a year. A recent AP poll found that nearly 75% of the country is opposed to shifting from standard time to daylight saving time annually. Yet, however much we may dislike it, we can’t seem to agree on the solution. While an overwhelming majority wants to end the biannual change, 43% believe we should stay in standard time, 32% think daylight saving time should be made permanent, and a quarter of the country prefers to leave the system just as it is.
Daylight saving time was introduced during World War I to conserve energy by extending daylight hours. While its original purpose is now largely obsolete in an age of advanced technology and diversified energy consumption, the practice persists. Why? Because, like many policies, change is difficult when balancing competing interests in a complex society.
Critics of the biannual clock-changing system highlight its adverse effects on public health, with studies showing that the spring transition, when we “lose” an hour, is linked to increased rates of heart attacks, strokes, and workplace accidents, while lingering sleep disruptions affect productivity and mental well-being.
A couple of years ago, the U.S. Senate passed a bill to eliminate of disruptive clock changes by making daylight saving time permanent, citing benefits such as extended evening daylight for outdoor activities and mental health, economic boosts through retail and recreation, and improved traffic safety.
However, the American Academy of Sleep Medicine opposes the Senate’s solution, advocating instead for permanent standard time, which they believe better supports overall health. Ultimately, the Senate’s proposal stalled in the House of Representatives, leaving the much-disliked status quo in place.
This division extends to the states as well. More than a third have passed legislation or resolutions to adopt permanent daylight saving time—if Congress allows it—while others, such as Arizona and Hawaii, have chosen to stick with standard time year-round.
In today’s era of political polarization, even the concept of agreeing on what time it is—or should be—has become a divisive issue.
The truth is, we’ve always been tinkering with time. Solar time—when noon corresponds to the sun’s highest point in the sky—was once the norm. But because this point shifts depending on your location, coordinating schedules between communities, even neighboring towns, became a complicated challenge. As technological advancements like trains and electronic communication began shrinking the world, scheduling turned into a Rube Goldberg-like conundrum. This prompted the creation of standardized time zones. The growth of railroads necessitated the establishment of common time zones to streamline travel and reduce confusion. It wasn’t a seamless transition, and not everyone embraced it at first, but society adapted.
The last major attempt to change the system was a two-year experiment with permanent daylight saving time in the early 1970s. While initially popular, the policy quickly lost support as Americans experienced the downsides of late sunrises during winter, such as children going to school in the dark. In 1973, a National Opinion Research Center poll found that 79% initially supported the change, but support plummeted by 37 points in just three months after implementation, dropping to 42%. Public opinion shifted so dramatically that Congress was compelled to reverse course, terminating the experiment before it reached completion.
There have been other proposals to alter how we construct time. Enter USA Time, a Swiftian-like modest proposal floated in the 1970s, which would have eliminated not just the biannual clock changes but also the need for multiple time zones altogether. Under USA Time, the entire country would operate in a single, unified time zone. Imagine a world where the East Coast and West Coast are on the same clock, with businesses, schools, and events coordinated on a national schedule.
However, USA Time was a flat-earth idea in a round-earth world. The optimal time system is inherently tied to geography, varying with location and coordinates. Cartographer Andy Woodruff created compelling maps illustrating how different time policies impact sunlight exposure. Woodruff explored how regions experience early morning and evening sunlight under three scenarios: the current biannual daylight-saving system, permanent daylight saving time, and permanent standard time. In Fairbanks, Alaska, with its midnight summer sunsets, the difference is negligible. In contrast, in New York, permanent standard time would mean brighter mornings but shorter evenings, while permanent daylight saving time would extend evening daylight at the cost of darker mornings. Woodruff’s findings show that the current biannual shift strikes a balance for places like New York State, but his analysis highlights the challenge of crafting a policy that works for everyone.
At its core, the debate over daylight saving time reflects the challenges of governance in a pluralistic society, aligning with political scientist Robert Dahl’s framework of balancing competing interests. For instance, parents may prioritize morning sunlight to ensure school safety, while others might advocate for extended evening daylight to enhance leisure opportunities. Agriculture, education, energy, health, and retail sectors all have differing perspectives on what constitutes a policy that is just right. Whether we maintain the status quo, adopt permanent daylight saving time, revert to standard time year-round, or embrace outlandish ideas like USA Time, the debate captures the complexities and compromises inherent in democratic decision-making.
Any policy change will have trade-offs, and achieving universal satisfaction may be an impossible goal. In the end, our current system of daylight saving time might just be the imperfectly perfect policy—a compromise that keeps the clocks ticking, and us moving forward, in a world that’s anything but simple.
*Credit, Rolling Stones
Jim Malatras is a professor at SUNY Empire State University and the former Chancellor of the State University of New York and former Director of Operations for New York State.
