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