Money and popularity are the key ingredients to getting elected in today’s political environment. This often leads to foul play and decomposition of our supposedly democratic system. It is no secret that campaigns are very expensive and require funds from outside sources. Unfortunately, this is where our trouble begins.
Campaign money comes from a variety of sources including individual donors and PACs. It is the PAC’s job to raise and distribute funds for use in election campaigns. Both of these sources are considered “hard money” or money given directly to the candidate. Each has a limited amount. The problems begin when this money is “overshadowed” by soft money, or money that is given to the political party and meant for voter registration and organization. Soft money is not regulated, meaning that infinite sums could be provided for the candidate. When these groups donate large amounts of money to a candidate, the candidate is often obligated to promote the thoughts of said group. This changes the prospective of the candidate and thus renders democracy useless.
These issues continue with voter turnout, or the percent of eligible individuals who actually vote. Candidates study trends of voter turnout and then tailor their campaign around the group with the highest turnout. Again, this skews the true viewpoint, making the election process not democratic. It creates a bias as politicians act upon interests of those proven to vote consistently. Even though the public has the right to choose to vote, the election process would be more democratic if voter turnout was higher. If turnout was more consistent, it would make bias harder to achieve, thus we would be more likely to hear the truth from our candidates. Because this is not happening, candidates see that the bias is necessary to get elected.
Political Parties also sway who a voter votes for. A political identity is found early in life and is usually based on parent’s political views or the views of the surrounding area. This would not be a problem, except many people only vote within their party, whether they like the candidate or not. This is called partisan identity and is not likely to change unless a major crisis occurs in the voter’s life. The issue remains because many people do not take the time to understand the views of the candidate and only vote by their political identity.
Bias in the media also effects public perception of political figures and their ideals. As seen in Journeys with George, many of the things on campaign trails are staged to promote a positive image on the candidate. That means that we the voters cannot possibly see who the real candidate is without going to some sort of event for the candidate. The public will not do this and will only continue to view the public through the lens of a studio camera. If the truth is not accurately shown, then we cannot accurately vote, meaning that the election process becomes less and less democratic.
In today’s society it takes a great deal of money, and a positive image to be elected. These two things often bring about falsehoods within the campaign. The method is not truly democratic because of how money is attained, voter turnout, voter identity, and media bias. Although the method is not truly democratic, with all of these factors working against a candidate, cheating is often the only way they can hope to be elected.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Monday, February 8, 2010
Civil Liberties Test
The freedoms found within America are perhaps the defining qualities of this nation. When these freedoms collide with protecting America’s citizens a problem ensues. Once this occurs, freedoms will overthrow protection as long as physical harm is not brought upon others, but if the case occurs within a school protection always wins in the hope of defending the individual.
The First Amendment is one of the most important as it protects a citizen’s speech. In the case of Texas v. Johnson this freedom was jeopardized in the hopes of protecting the peace of surrounding citizens. Johnson burned a flag in protest of the Reagan Administration and was jailed for disrupting the peace and harming a symbol of unity. The police where trying to protect the peace and happiness of the community, but to do so they violated Johnson’s freedom. In court Johnson wins because physical expression was ruled as protected by the first amendment. Because Johnson did not physically harm someone, his freedom beat out “protection.”
Another freedom is given to citizens in the Sixth Amendment, or the right to a fair trial. In Gideon v. Wainright, this freedom was violated when the court refused to appoint an attorney to a convicted man. Although convicting the man physically protects other citizens, the court violated an important freedom. They did not need to further protect anyone else from physical harm and the man’s freedom won. Once he was in the court there was not a need to physically protect another citizen any longer. In the collision of freedom and protection, freedom won again.
Finally, in the case of Mapp v. Ohio, a woman was convicted for possessing obscene materials found after an illegal police search of her home. The Fourth Amendment was violated because it protects a citizen from search without probable cause or reasonable suspicion. It’s true that the possessing the material is illegal, but the violation of the Fourth Amendment and the freedom given to Mapp, allowed her to win her case. Even though the police were trying to protect surrounding citizens, the materials could not harm them as they were hidden within private property. Hence, Mapp’s freedom won, due to the exclusionary rule which states that evidence obtained illegally cannot be used against you.
Unfortunately the same cannot be said for situations within a school where student protection trounces any freedoms. In the case of New Jersey v. T.L.O. a student was caught smoking in a bathroom and was further searched for illegal substances. This search did not violate her rights because of the school setting. Although the drugs did not physically harm any other human being, the school feels a need to protect the individual. In Loco Parentis gives the school system the ability to take away freedoms in the hopes of protecting the students and peace in the school. Thus, anytime freedoms and protection collide within a school, protection will always win.
Although we are a nation with many freedoms, we are also a nation that hopes for security. When these two idealisms collide, a court battle usually ensues. As long as the freedom does not cause physical harm to anyone else, then freedoms will win every time.
-Lindsey May
The First Amendment is one of the most important as it protects a citizen’s speech. In the case of Texas v. Johnson this freedom was jeopardized in the hopes of protecting the peace of surrounding citizens. Johnson burned a flag in protest of the Reagan Administration and was jailed for disrupting the peace and harming a symbol of unity. The police where trying to protect the peace and happiness of the community, but to do so they violated Johnson’s freedom. In court Johnson wins because physical expression was ruled as protected by the first amendment. Because Johnson did not physically harm someone, his freedom beat out “protection.”
Another freedom is given to citizens in the Sixth Amendment, or the right to a fair trial. In Gideon v. Wainright, this freedom was violated when the court refused to appoint an attorney to a convicted man. Although convicting the man physically protects other citizens, the court violated an important freedom. They did not need to further protect anyone else from physical harm and the man’s freedom won. Once he was in the court there was not a need to physically protect another citizen any longer. In the collision of freedom and protection, freedom won again.
Finally, in the case of Mapp v. Ohio, a woman was convicted for possessing obscene materials found after an illegal police search of her home. The Fourth Amendment was violated because it protects a citizen from search without probable cause or reasonable suspicion. It’s true that the possessing the material is illegal, but the violation of the Fourth Amendment and the freedom given to Mapp, allowed her to win her case. Even though the police were trying to protect surrounding citizens, the materials could not harm them as they were hidden within private property. Hence, Mapp’s freedom won, due to the exclusionary rule which states that evidence obtained illegally cannot be used against you.
Unfortunately the same cannot be said for situations within a school where student protection trounces any freedoms. In the case of New Jersey v. T.L.O. a student was caught smoking in a bathroom and was further searched for illegal substances. This search did not violate her rights because of the school setting. Although the drugs did not physically harm any other human being, the school feels a need to protect the individual. In Loco Parentis gives the school system the ability to take away freedoms in the hopes of protecting the students and peace in the school. Thus, anytime freedoms and protection collide within a school, protection will always win.
Although we are a nation with many freedoms, we are also a nation that hopes for security. When these two idealisms collide, a court battle usually ensues. As long as the freedom does not cause physical harm to anyone else, then freedoms will win every time.
-Lindsey May
Friday, February 5, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)