One would think that it would take experience and good ideas for a person to be elected president, or to be elected for any political seat. But in all honesty, elections have turned out to be more about money and popularity than voting for the greater good and looking towards what the country needs.
For example, in the movie about Jeff Smith running for office, Smith didn’t have that much money or funds, and so he couldn’t use any high tech methods of getting his name out. That shows how nowadays, that sometimes the PACs and soft money mean more to a candidate in the long run. PACs make donations to candidates for corporations and trade unions. Without these, the candidates would have a lot less money and have to find new ways to get their name out and put themselves in the public eye. Jeff Smith had to go around and literally knock on everyone’s door so that they knew who he was. His competitors, on the other hand, were able to use extra money to send out glossy pamphlets and papers covered in witty slogans. Some of the money they used was probably also soft money, the money not given directly to the candidate but it helps the candidate out. Jeff Smith really only had hard money, the money acquired from repetitive funding from government and organizations. Since he didn’t have a big name in the business, not many companies funded him and therefore he had to work harder to get his name out.
Another example for why today’s political environment isn’t truly democratic is because of media bias. Media bias is when different media stations send out different messages to people about candidates. One television news station might lean more liberal while another might lean more conservative. Many times, different news stations will push more towards one political party than another. Political parties are the denominations such as democrat and republican, that are shown to have different views about a wide variety of subjects. And these views that they push onto the viewers really change how the audience thinks and what they believe they should vote for. And the media bias doesn’t just stop at political bias, it can also be personal. A news station might rave about one politician and rant about another, when really, the candidates are equal in their own ways. The way that the media talks about people, especially candidates, really changes how the audience views them.
One last example for why elections are no longer truly democratic is voter turnout. Voter turnout is how many people show up to vote for political elections. Really, only the people who have taken the time to learn about the candidates come out to vote. Some citizens are just too lazy or uneducated to make a mature decision and therefore don’t come out to vote. Even though it isn’t “truly democratic”, since not everybody is throwing in their own two cents, I think that a low voter turnout is actually better for America. It would be bad to force people to vote, when they really don’t care or don’t have an opinion. Low turnout is good for elections because that means that only the people who have made an educated decision will vote, and those are the people we want voting for the future of our country.
So no, elections these days are definitely not purely democratic. It’s all a contest where money, the media, and voter turnout rule and the candidates are just along for the ride.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Monday, February 8, 2010
Civil Liberties Test
(Elizabeth Higdon)
Many times in history, amendments have collided, causing trouble to distinguish between which is more valuable, freedoms or protections.
An example of this would be the First Amendment. In the case of Texas vs. Johnson, Johnson burned an American flag in public to express his opinions against the president’s policies. He was arrested for this but court voted that he was protected by the First Amendment because he was using expressive conduct and it had a political nature. In this case, his freedom of speech was more important than the “protection” of others. It wasn’t mandatory that people watched or listened to what he had to say and therefore wasn’t hindering anyone’s protection. On the other hand, in the case of Bethel vs. Fraser, the protections won over the freedoms. Fraser was suspended from his school because during an assembly speech, he used a graphic sexual metaphor and the parents of the underclassmen weren’t thrilled. But the court answered that the First Amendment did not prevent the school district from disciplining Fraser. In this case, protections won over freedoms. Because Fraser was speaking at a school assembly where all of the students were gathered and being forced to listen, the protection of the students was more important than the freedom of letting Fraser say was he wanted to say. His suspension also wasn’t prevented by the First Amendment because he was in a school and he was speaking against the “fundamental values of public education”, and it wasn’t a political speech. These two cases show that freedoms and protection in school and out of school differ. It’s okay for adults to express their political opinions in the open because nobody is being forced to listen. But it’s not okay to express all opinions in school because some believe it hinders the kids’ abilities to learn.
Another example of when freedoms and protections for civilians collide is shown in the case New Jersey vs. T.L.O. T.L.O. was accused of smoking in the girls’ bathroom at her school and the principal purposefully went through her purse and found incriminating evidence that she was involved with drugs. The question was, was it okay for the principal to unrightfully search through T.L.O.’s purse? Court voted that it was indeed okay for the principal to do that and that it did not violate the Fourth Amendment. This case is another example for how protections can prove more important than freedoms. Even though the principal had no warrant to search T.L.O.’s private belongings, she still could do so because it was for the sake of other students. The freedom that T.L.O. has to keep illegal belongings a secret was overseen by the protection of the other students. If the principal had never searched her purse, T.L.O. might have started, or even continued, selling drugs to other students. The principal stopped this from happening by using her intuition and searching the purse. It was also okay for her to do that because it was on school grounds and schools are part of the government.
One last example is the case of how freedoms and protections collide is shown in the Goss v. Lopez case. When a few students were suspended from school, the principal didn’t give them a proper preliminary hearing. They took it to court, saying that the principal had violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights. The court voted that yes, the principal had violated these rights. Yet again, this case shows how freedoms and protections can collide. The freedom would be to let the kids come to school because it’s necessary to let children get their education. But the protections of the other students are important too, and if a principal thinks that students have done something that did or could have caused an unnecessary disturbance in the other students’ education, then they should be able to do what it takes to keep that disturbance away, even if it means suspending some students. In this case the freedoms of the students who got suspended were deemed more important because Ohio had chosen to extend the right to an education to its citizens and one principal couldn’t withdraw that right because of misconduct. Also, the principal was at fault anyways for not giving a preliminary hearing.
Even today, the debate between which are more important, freedoms or protections, still exists. But there’s no clear cut answer, it all has to do with the case and the specifics.
Many times in history, amendments have collided, causing trouble to distinguish between which is more valuable, freedoms or protections.
An example of this would be the First Amendment. In the case of Texas vs. Johnson, Johnson burned an American flag in public to express his opinions against the president’s policies. He was arrested for this but court voted that he was protected by the First Amendment because he was using expressive conduct and it had a political nature. In this case, his freedom of speech was more important than the “protection” of others. It wasn’t mandatory that people watched or listened to what he had to say and therefore wasn’t hindering anyone’s protection. On the other hand, in the case of Bethel vs. Fraser, the protections won over the freedoms. Fraser was suspended from his school because during an assembly speech, he used a graphic sexual metaphor and the parents of the underclassmen weren’t thrilled. But the court answered that the First Amendment did not prevent the school district from disciplining Fraser. In this case, protections won over freedoms. Because Fraser was speaking at a school assembly where all of the students were gathered and being forced to listen, the protection of the students was more important than the freedom of letting Fraser say was he wanted to say. His suspension also wasn’t prevented by the First Amendment because he was in a school and he was speaking against the “fundamental values of public education”, and it wasn’t a political speech. These two cases show that freedoms and protection in school and out of school differ. It’s okay for adults to express their political opinions in the open because nobody is being forced to listen. But it’s not okay to express all opinions in school because some believe it hinders the kids’ abilities to learn.
Another example of when freedoms and protections for civilians collide is shown in the case New Jersey vs. T.L.O. T.L.O. was accused of smoking in the girls’ bathroom at her school and the principal purposefully went through her purse and found incriminating evidence that she was involved with drugs. The question was, was it okay for the principal to unrightfully search through T.L.O.’s purse? Court voted that it was indeed okay for the principal to do that and that it did not violate the Fourth Amendment. This case is another example for how protections can prove more important than freedoms. Even though the principal had no warrant to search T.L.O.’s private belongings, she still could do so because it was for the sake of other students. The freedom that T.L.O. has to keep illegal belongings a secret was overseen by the protection of the other students. If the principal had never searched her purse, T.L.O. might have started, or even continued, selling drugs to other students. The principal stopped this from happening by using her intuition and searching the purse. It was also okay for her to do that because it was on school grounds and schools are part of the government.
One last example is the case of how freedoms and protections collide is shown in the Goss v. Lopez case. When a few students were suspended from school, the principal didn’t give them a proper preliminary hearing. They took it to court, saying that the principal had violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights. The court voted that yes, the principal had violated these rights. Yet again, this case shows how freedoms and protections can collide. The freedom would be to let the kids come to school because it’s necessary to let children get their education. But the protections of the other students are important too, and if a principal thinks that students have done something that did or could have caused an unnecessary disturbance in the other students’ education, then they should be able to do what it takes to keep that disturbance away, even if it means suspending some students. In this case the freedoms of the students who got suspended were deemed more important because Ohio had chosen to extend the right to an education to its citizens and one principal couldn’t withdraw that right because of misconduct. Also, the principal was at fault anyways for not giving a preliminary hearing.
Even today, the debate between which are more important, freedoms or protections, still exists. But there’s no clear cut answer, it all has to do with the case and the specifics.
Friday, February 5, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)