Elections Test

Running for office is harder than it sounds. There are only a few requirements to be eligible, yet few people know what it takes to get on the ballot and even fewer actually do it. Some of this is because people want to do other things, but I think a lot of it is because people really don’t care. Most people don’t even know their own congressman’s name, so how can we expect there to be a large interest in politics?

I believe that the election process is democratic, although it is very unfair. Soft money was always the way that politicians got an obscene amount of money for ads and press conferences by not receiving it directly. Now that the law about spending caps has been revoked, hard money is unlimited and it will be even harder for the common man to get elected. In Can Mr. Smith Still Get to Washington?, it was pretty obvious that money and family connections play a big part in getting elected. But it is wrong to say anyone with money is a bad candidate, because there is the other side of the coin. Just because a guy is a “common man” doesn’t mean he knows what he’s doing when it comes to politics. So while some people may argue that because of money and family names the election process is not democratic, it really is because saying someone can’t run because they have too much money would be the real undemocratic thing. I believe Political Action Committees are also democratic. People have strong opinions, and they should be able to support those opinions anyway they can. Calling PACs undemocratic is like calling charities undemocratic because some get more money then others.

I like the idea of having political parties. There are far too many people in this country and far too many ideas for everyone to have their own little political party. The political party system is a mostly efficient way to standardize political views in order to actually get things done in Congress. Although the party system also has it flaws, like having to squeeze decisions into 2 distinct categories as either conservative and liberal and the constant feuding between the two parties.

The one problem plaguing our election process is voter turnout. The voter turnout is very low compared to what it could be, and a lot of the people who do vote do not know all the facts about the people they are voting for. One big problem with this is media bias. Every news station, no matter how noble they claim they are, has some bias. I don’t think this is a problem, in fact I think they should announce their bias so people know what to expect. The problem lies with people relying on getting all their news from one source, so they don’t know both sides of the story. This really becomes a problem when voting season comes around, because people will vote for the person their news source has been pushing.

In conclusion, I think there is nothing undemocratic about the election process, although it is very unfair for the unconnected. The problem with our election process is lack of activism by voters, both by not voting and making uninformed votes. But the choice to vote however one chooses is the basis of our country, so if we don’t like the election process we only have ourselves to blame.

Ch. 7 Test: Freedoms v. Protection

The American people are given a lot of leeway in terms what they can and cannot do in America. They are allowed to say whatever they want to say as long as it is not threatening to American ideals. In Near v. Minnesota, Near was barred from publishing a defaming article about a public official. The Supreme Court ruled that prior restraint is unconstitutional. Under the 1st Amendment, American citizens are allowed to speak or write whatever they want as long as it is not libel, dangerous, incendiary, or vulgar. This amendment protects people from lies and danger, but allows Americans to speak their mind freely in a public setting.
While citizens can publish just about anything, the case is very different in schools. In Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, Hazelwood was not allowed to publish a racy article in the school paper. The Supreme Court took the school’s side, saying that En Loco Parentis enables the school to censor things they feel are inappropriate in the school setting. So while there is a lot of freedom in America in terms of free speech, there is a larger emphasis on protection in the school setting.
One of the biggest ideals in America is freedom, and losing that freedom due to criminal acts is a big deal. The issue of citizen’s knowing their rights before they are convicted of a crime is crucial to maintaining freedom. In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court upheld the idea that citizens must be read their full list of rights prior to being arrested. This action allows citizens to be fully aware of their rights and powers so they can maintain their freedom. In this case, freedom is more important than protection because before a person is proven to have committed a crime, they deserve all of the freedoms provided under the constitution.
On the same note, citizens should be allowed to have an equal chance of maintaining their freedom when accused of a crime. In the case of Gideon v. Wainright, the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for Gideon to be tried without an attorney offered to him. When the state accuses someone of a crime, they will have lawyers present to prove that person guilty. Because the accused is still a free American citizen, they should deserve the same means to defend themselves with as the state has to accuse them with. This is why the 8th Amendment promises an attorney to the accused so they can fairly defend themselves in the often confusing court of law. This amendment favors American’s freedoms over their protections, giving everyone a fair chance at defending themselves when accused.