What is the future of Democracy?

The future of democracy looks rather deem.  I believe we are in the middle of shifting from democracy to dictatorship.  More and more times now days the President and other leaders of our country are not counting on us, the U.S. citizens, to vote and decide on issues.  A big reason why is people continually don't vote for laws, presidents, office members, and such.  By not voting, we as citizens are sacrificing our rights and laws.

We all enjoy what America is all about.  We have freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and many more things a lot of other countries do not have.  In those countries, you would get killed or other punishment for expressing your individuality.  It is time to for everyone to get out and vote so our country will not turn into a dictatorship.

I posted a video on the percentage of Americans who vote.  Generally around 54% of Americans vote in presidential elections, and other elections.  This number fluctuates year to year.  There are certain demographics of voters who do not vote.  76% of voters who do not vote include those under age 30 and those with no college education.

That goes along with my hypothesis of the less educated you are, the less you will listen to and learn about politics.  Rather than not voting at all, everyone should at least vote for someone.  You are entitled to your own opinion politically so why not exercise that right?

I would really like to see a change in this.  The only way for it to change is if voters who choose not to vote decide to educate themselves about politics and start voting.  If this does not start happening more soon, the future of being able to vote might be in jeopardy.

So my question is when will more voters choose to vote? What will it take to have every voter vote in every election?

Politics & Government : What Percentage of Americans Vote?

What is the process to develop an economic policy that provides services and sustainability?

When you take a look at our current economic state, a lot of things could be said.  A couple of things are we are spending quite a bit on money on defense.  Why are we currently being involved in what's going on in Libya?  Does that really concern us other than the fact our country is bound and determined to demonstrate we are the most powerful country in the world? 

Before answering that question it is time to think about current events taking places.  There are huge budget cuts going on.  Are any of the budget cuts in any part of our defense?  I do not believe so.  A huge portion of our budget cuts are in an area that is one of the most important, education.  We keep on hearing about schools closing down, class sizes increasing, higher education tuition rising.  All of these issues in education should not be happening.

Without education where would our country be? Not anywhere near where it is today, even in the current economy.  In order for a country to run as effectively as possible, it needs a high majority of their people to be college educated.  It is increasingly difficult for many to be college educated.  College tuition is on the rise, while the amount of financial aid available is falling.  But higher education is not the only part of the education system that is suffering.  Elementary, middle, and high school education is suffering as well.

I found an article that displays the 10 most painful education cutbacks in March.  Among them is Sesame Street no longer being on the air.  That was a critical show for young children to watch and learn things.  Another issue was class sizes for 11th and 12th grade English and Math classes in Los Angeles.  The average size classes have 43 students which is nowhere near where it should be at.  In North Caroline, Academy Heights Elementary, the 2nd ranked K-5 school in North Carolina is going to be closing next year.  Schools with disabled children are suffering too.  New York's St. Francis DeSales is almost closed down.  Teachers are being victims as well.  In Providence, Rhode Island as many as 70 teachers could be laid off in 4 underperforming elementary schools.  In Boston, more than 12 of its schools are planning to close or merge with other schools.

We should take a look at our education before being involved in any international conflict.  So my question is what is what is it going to take for education to not become the target of budget cuts?  How are we going to stop it? What needs to be done?

http://www.takepart.com/news/2011/03/31/top-10-education-cuts-that-hurt-the-most-

Erskine Bowles - Higher Education as an Economic Driver

No help for middle class family losing their home

How does a government facilitate comprehensive care for its constituents without sacrificing equity?

I came across an article on the middle class being too rich to qualify for government assistance.  It talks about a family that is just above the lower class income but cannot afford certain things such as daycare for their children, health insurance, and autism testing and treatment for their son.  Both the mother and father’s job does not offer affordable healthcare.  Due to their middle class status, they do not qualify for any assistance for any of those things.  Some of their friends live in Mexico, are in the lower class, and come over to the U.S. for health insurance.  The health insurance they get is government assisted.  But in order to afford to go to the doctor, the family has to go to Mexico so they can afford treatment.

Now, to me that sounds like something is really messed up.  How can you live in another country but get health insurance that is government assistance in another country?  That isn’t fair to the family.  They should be able to qualify for some government assistance.  They should not have to go to Mexico to be able to afford treatment.  Mexico is a third-world country.  There medical care would be nowhere near the level of care in the U.S. or other developed countries. 

This seems to be a major problem in the U.S. government.  The U.S. is ready and willing to spend money on assisting the lower class.  They offer food stamps, free food, and reduced housing among other things.  Yet, the middle class gets ignored.  The middle class is not that much better off than the lower class.  Do they get any kind of assistance? No.  Why? They make a little bit more than the lower class.  Such things as paying for college education and health insurance need government assistance for middle class families.  They have trouble being able to afford both.  The middle class usually does not qualify for the grants and scholarship type of financial aid.  The parents supposedly make too much money.

When is the government going to start looking at individual cases rather than group everyone together? That is what needs to happen to make this right.  Not all middle class families can afford everything.  There are those who can afford housing and food but not health care and college tuition.  Some can afford housing, food, and health care but not college tuition.  And in the minority, there are those can afford housing, food, health care, and college tuition.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/29/no-help-for-the-middle-cl_n_629255.html

Wes Clark - America's Foreign Policy "Coup"

How should a nation-state develop its foreign policy in accordance to its values and in connection to the development of its domestic policy?

I came across this video that Wes Clark speaks about America’s foreign policy coup.  In this video he talks about what has been going on with to our foreign policy as far as the Middle East is concerned.  He states that no one knew why our troops were in the Middle East.  He says that there was a plan in the next 5 years to invade and promote democracy in 7 different countries such as Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Somalia, and Sudan.  What I like about the video is he pretty much says that he didn’t know the only way to be effective with our military and foreign policy was to start wars with other countries to promote democracy.  By doing so, our main goal for our foreign policy is to show other countries how powerful we are and not to promote democracy.  There are ways to go about promoting democracy that are peaceful.  Having talks with leaders of countries that the U.S. wants to promote democracy is a start.  It will take a while to get done.  I believe that is the problem.  Our leaders want the instant gratification.  They want results now.  By just going out and starting wars that gets what they want.  By going the peaceful route, it will take a long period of time just to get to the point of deciding to keep on talking or take action such as war.

When are we going to promote democracy peacefully? When are we going to focus more on our own problems rather than international problems? We still have problems with our economy and health care.  So why is it we are starting to be involved now in another war with Libya? That doesn’t make any sense.

Wes Clark - America's Foreign Policy "Coup"

Bill of Rights: First 10 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution

What Role Do Judges And The Judicial System Play In Supporting Freedom?

The judicial system interprets the Constitution and applies federal laws that govern all Americans.  The judicial system reviews decisions of state courts to make sure they comply with federal law.  One would think this sounds more like the judicial system restricts freedom more than it supports it, but that is not the case.  By the judicial system interpreting the Constitution, it gives us freedoms.  For example, let’s consider freedom of speech, press, and religion.  If the judicial system did not interpret those, we would have less freedom.  All this makes the U.S. unique from other countries.  You do not have to belong to a certain religion.  You can say whatever is on your mind, within reason. 

I have posted a video on the Bill of Rights that is the first 10 Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.  I believe the Bill of Rights are the most important Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.  Without the Bill of Rights would there be human rights in the United States?  I really do not believe so.  There would be no other basis for human rights.  Citizens would have no freedom.  Police officers would not have to do their work the right way in order to put people in jail.

The Bill of Rights covers freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, granting soldiers the right to be quartered in houses only with consent of the owner, the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to not be tried for any serious crime without the Grand Jury meeting first to determine if there is enough evidence for trial, the right to a speedy trial, the right to a jury, the right to no cruel or unusual punishment, the right to other rights besides what’s in the Constitution, and the right for anything the Constitution doesn’t say that Congress can do should be left up to the states or to the people.

All of these rights are subjective.  Judges and the judicial system are there to interpret these rights.  They are here to make sure our rights are not violated. 

Another important way the judicial system supports freedom is by giving the weak the ability to challenge those who have power.  Those who have power generally do not have to face up to anything.  That is not the case in the court of law.

Bill of Rights: First 10 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution

How Does the U.S. Congress, as it Exists in its Current Structure, Support and/or Limit Authentic Representation?

The way Congress support authentic representation of the people is by representatives and senators being elected into their positions.  This lets the public determine who they want in the Senate and House of Representatives rather than other political parties voting for who they think should be in the Senate or House of Representatives.  The Senate makes sure each state is represented in Congress, while the littler areas within each are made sure they are represented by the House of Representatives.

Congress limits the authentic representation of people by not having an exact profile of the citizens its members represent.  There are some populations with too much representation.  Some of these populations are most likely males, college educated, white, wealthy, professional and business people.  Other populations are not represented or if they are they are disproportionately represented.  Some of the populations would likely to include Hispanics, Blacks, poor, high school educated, and homeless.  I don’t see those who are being over-represented really trying to work towards the interests of those are not represented or are disproportionately represented.

Congress is allowed to pick Supreme Court judges.  That is another way Congress limited authentic representation of people.  Since the majority of Congress are wealthy, white, males they more than likely will want to pick Supreme Court judges like themselves.  That isn’t right at all.  They should have a more open mind about others.

I came across an article on Supreme Court judges and American Indians.  The American Indian population would like to be represented in the Supreme Court.  Currently there are no American Indians in the Supreme Court.  They often are misunderstood.  A lot of American Indian judges or lawyers spend all their lives helping their tribes or public interest groups, while tribal experience is misunderstood and dismissed. 

Elena Kagan is perhaps the most qualified American Indian to be considered for the Supreme Court.  Congress was against having Elena on it.  This was a devastating blow because it could have further made history.  There are 860 Supreme Court judges and not one is American Indian.  How is that truly having presentation for everyone?  How can we finally have adequate and equal presentation of Senate, House of Representatives, and Supreme Court?

American Indians Ask for Voice on Federal Court - http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2010/07/02/american-indians-ask-for-voice-on-federal-court?PageNr=2

Debating the Electoral College System | The New York Observer

Debating the Electoral College System The New York Observer

In What Ways Does the U.S. Presidency Support and Limit the Formation of an Ideal Democracy?

The U.S. Presidency supporting and limiting the formation of an ideal democracy is a contradictory subject.  On one hand, the U.S. Presidency supports the formation of an ideal democracy by allowing the public to vote.  In other countries, that is not always the case.  The public can vote on the Presidency all the way down to local things like Amendments, Mayor, Governor, etc.  There is a huge difference in how elections work from the Presidency to all the local elections like Mayor, Governor, Amendments, etc.  For local elections, everyone simply votes whether by mail-in ballot or going to your assigned voting destination.  After that, the votes are counted up and the winners are announces.

For the U.S. Presidency, it is not that simple.  Everyone can still vote whether by mail-in ballot or going to your assigned voting destination.  After that it is determined, as a country who has the majority vote.  It does not stop there.  The other system in place for the U.S. Presidency is the Electoral College.  It gives different elector numbers based on the number of Senators and members of House of Representation the state has.

That is one of the parts that are contradictory.  While the U.S. Presidency allows the public to vote, it does not rely heavily on individual votes.   For example, in the 2000 election, Al Gore had the majority vote but George W. Bush had more Electoral College votes and won.  In an ideal democracy, it should be more about individuals than groups.

Another contradictory fact is that, while the public can vote on different bills to pass or fail, Congress still has the power to pass a bill that the public did not pass on.  If Congress really likes a bill that did not pass, them and other political parties can send it to the President and let the President decide on it.  This doesn’t seem much like a democracy.  Why is the public voting on bills when Congress can still pass them onto the President regardless of the outcome?

I attached a link to a clip of debating the Electoral College system.  Tom Golisano wants to eliminate it, while Pat Buchanan wants to keep it in place.  My question is should the Electoral College system still be in use?  Should we elect the President purely on the majority vote? Is there another possible system to use to elect the President?

Debating the Electoral College System | The New York Observer

Debating the Electoral College System The New York Observer

How do individuals and groups of people influence the political process?

Individuals and groups of people influencing the political process can be answered in a variety of ways. Individuals influence the political process by voting. Individual voting is supposed to influence the political process but is not always the case. Take a look at when Al Gore and George W. Bush went against each other in the 2000 presidential election. Al Gore had the majority of the vote, yet the Electoral College votes went to George W. Bush.

I came upon a website that listed all states/districts in the U.S. and shows the percentage of the votes George W. Bush, Al Gore, and Ralph Nader had along with the Electoral College votes as well.  Our voting system seems puzzling to me.  48.38% of the majority vote went to Al Gore compared to 47.87% for George W. Bush, and 2.74% for Ralph Nader.  On the other hand, George W. Bush had 271 Electoral College votes compared to 266 for Al Gore.

How is it that majority vote and the Electoral College votes differ so much?  The majority vote counts for individuals.  The Electoral College counts for groups of people.  There seems to be a clash between individuals and groups. 

Based on this election, I would have to say groups of people influence the political processes more than individuals.   Even though Al Gore had the majority vote, he did not have the Electoral College vote and so he was not elected President of the United States.  That is why I am confused about why we have both a majority vote and Electoral College vote.  One would think the value of individuals would be greater than groups of people.  The Electoral College puts more weight on certain states than others.  That does not seem fair to me.

Another way groups of people have more influence than individuals is when there are rallies, marches, and political meetings. It would be one thing if it was just one individual out there for rallies, marches, and political meetings. No one would really care. To have large groups of people out there rallying, marching, and attending political meetings is a whole different thing. Large groups of people make a lot more difference in voting than just one individual vote. Political leaders will go around different areas of town to see large groups of people. They will not go to individuals homes.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html

In what ways does public opinion influence the formation of a democratic society?

In theory, in a democratic society, public opinion is influenced tremendously. The government wants to follow what the citizen ideas, attitudes, values, and beliefs are. In a democratic society, every citizen is able to vote if they are registered to vote. That means every single citizen has an influence on the issues at hand. But does public opinion really influence what the decisions political leaders take? I highly doubt it. Political leaders have their own ideas, attitudes, values, and beliefs about political issues too. They already have made up their minds on issues. The key for political leaders is if any of the citizens agree with what they think. Some political leaders are wishy-washy about what they think about issues. They try to maintain a balance of opinion so that potential votes they get don’t go entirely against them. Later, if elected for office then the public finds out what they really thought about the issues. Other political leaders have promised things such as lowering taxes but when elected and it came time to do that, they did not do it.

In the video below is a perfect example of a president saying one thing and doing the other.  President Bush says “read my lips no new taxes.”  That is an interesting use of words.  He would later do the exact opposite.  There were new taxes.  He had to eat his own words and that cost him the election against Bill Clinton.

The public obviously wanted no new taxes.  They didn’t even want any of the taxes that currently existed.  President Bush knew that.  Any political leader knew that was what the public wanted.  President Bush was deceitful in his campaign.  In reality, he really knew that there were going to be new taxes.  He wanted to focus on a way he could win the election.  If you know how the public stands on an issue, it only makes sense to stand with the majority in the campaigning phase.  Later on when elected, you can always go back and reverse your decisions on how you stand on certain issues.  That is why I feel as though the public’s opinion only goes so far.  Just because the public wants things done a certain way or have a certain stance on issues does not mean the political leaders are going to side with public during the campaigning and when elected.  So my question is what can be done so the public opinion matters more than the current state it is in?

George H W Bush read my lips

j

How Do Government & The Private Sector Intersect? How should it?

I believe that the government and private sector intersect. The government has control over almost everything that the economy does. In certain situations both the private sector and government has crossed the line. An example of the private sector is prisons being privatized. The personnel on board the private sector do not necessarily have a clue on how to run a prison. They might let the inmates have too much freedom.  They could allow inmates unlimited computer access, unlimited time outside (working out, playing sports, etc.), they might provide high cost meals for them.  Other concerns would be with safety.  The private sector prison workers might let their guard down more often, they might not know what to do in case of a riot, they might not know what to do when a one on one fight happens, they might not know what to do to prevent inmates from having weapons inside their cell, they might not know what to do if inmates have drugs and make alcohol.  Another thing is they will think of it as a prison but instead a business.  They could view making the inmates happy as the right way to run the prison.  What they would fail to realize is that the inmates committed a crime and need to be punished.  They would be sending the wrong message to them by trying to keep them happy and doing extra things for them to make sure they remain happy.  There would be a good chance the inmates would not learn their lesson from being at a privatized prison. 

On the other hand, the government personnel do know how to run a prison. The government has been running prisons for a long time. They know how to keep inmates in line, while not crossing over the line (in most cases).  They will not allow things such as unlimited computer and outside access.  There is some kind of rules they follow regarding letting inmates use computers and be outside.  They will not provide extraordinary meals for inmates.  Most likely inmates only have two meals a day.  The government ran prisons would never let their guard down, they would know what to do in every type of situation.  They will make sure the inmates learn their lesson.

 There needs to be happy medium between the government and private sector for it to be most effective.  There can't be too much goverment or too much private sector.  Too much government will cause people to lose their freedom.  Too much private sector will cause everything to lose its value.  What needs to happen so that there will be a medium between the government and private sector?

http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/government-working-public-prisons-handover-private-sector-116205 National Business Review - Government working on public prisons handover to private sector

http://www.governmentcompetition.org/howgovtcompetes.html Business Coalition for Fair Competition

http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/newsdetail1.asp?storyID=190571 Newstalk ZB

PSC 1010

Hello,

I just finished almost everything I needed to do to have my blog ready to go for my PSC 1010 class.  I think this is an interesting component of the class.  I never took an online class that you created your own blog for.  It should be interesting and fun.

As far as what party I am aligned with goes, I have always voted for the Democrat.  That does not mean all Democratic views I agree with.  In fact, I would say I am more in the middle.