Jesse Mohring
11/5/13
Civics d block
Mrs.Schiesel
Question: Does the electoral college system help or hinder democracy in this country?
I believe the electoral college system provides a fair and organized way in electing our nation's presidents. It is an organized matter of keeping the votes in order from being miscounted or misused in any way that could affect or alter the results of an election. How ever, I am not all for the electoral system for it is an organized efficient way in electing, but does not provide a fair justice for the people and the popular vote. Because of the electoral college, the popular (or people's vote) is not as effective as it should be towards presidential electing. The popular vote with the electoral system is at a lost of effective power because the people's vote doesn't really matter towards the out come of elections. Not enough trust is put towards the people's vote and to much trust is in the electoral voting, where electoral: it actually counts and would affect the out come of determining an election.
There are many flaws and frailties in our voting system as it is, and the electoral system, flaw free and organized, still doesn't fix the problem. The problem is that the peoples vote does not go as far or be as effective towards their vote as it could go. the popular vote could have more power and could be more effective for the people, but with the traditional electoral system this cannot be. The electoral system has weaknesses, for it doesn't give the chance for a third party to be successful, (the electoral college:top ten strength & weaknesses) with the electoral system, choices are very limited and usually lean towards the democratic and republican parties which rival during every election. This makes the elections very predictable tho not the outcome. For example because of the electoral system influencing which states to be republican or democratic, it makes no difference at all whether Obama gets 28 or 41% of Utah's voting, he gets no electoral votes either way because Utah is a republican state. (stenghth&weaknesses) Because he gets no electoral votes in that state, the republican party would automatically win that state, so there for one's democratic vote in the state of Utah would not count. YET, we live in a country where WE get to vote and choose are leaders... it sounds like democracy but it is not. Democracy is there for hindered by the electoral college system.
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
Monday, September 23, 2013
Issue 1 from the article: The Obama administration's reach and the extent of NSA programs
Jesse Mohring
9/23/13
Civics, D block
Article, issue 1 blog
From issue 1, the issue stated is that if the NSA is helping figure out tracking terrorist plans, and keeping information classified and declassified to the public. But it raises the controversy of how much should the public know? and or for the public's own good, and own safety....Does the government want you to know or think you are not qualified or educated enough to know. this is what was raised in speculation when reading this article. California Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman and senator Dianne Feinstein (democrat-California) stood by the NSA program saying that it helped exploit over 50 terrorist plots and have helped oversight some of the terrorist plots from ever reaching exploitation and or going as planned. She stated "I can tell you that I believe the oversight we have conducted is strong and effective and I am doing my level best to get more information declassified. Please know that it is equally frustrating to me as it is to you, that I cannot provide more detail on the value these programs provide and the strict limitations placed on how this information is used."
That was said by the senator her self how ever some viewers raise the argument that the NSA program its self does not bring in enough information to track down these terrorist plots. Tho stated by the senator that the plan is working, it is controversial on how much information brought in by this program that should be declassified to the public. As of now, most information of terrorist schemes are classified privately by the government.
9/23/13
Civics, D block
Article, issue 1 blog
From issue 1, the issue stated is that if the NSA is helping figure out tracking terrorist plans, and keeping information classified and declassified to the public. But it raises the controversy of how much should the public know? and or for the public's own good, and own safety....Does the government want you to know or think you are not qualified or educated enough to know. this is what was raised in speculation when reading this article. California Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman and senator Dianne Feinstein (democrat-California) stood by the NSA program saying that it helped exploit over 50 terrorist plots and have helped oversight some of the terrorist plots from ever reaching exploitation and or going as planned. She stated "I can tell you that I believe the oversight we have conducted is strong and effective and I am doing my level best to get more information declassified. Please know that it is equally frustrating to me as it is to you, that I cannot provide more detail on the value these programs provide and the strict limitations placed on how this information is used."
That was said by the senator her self how ever some viewers raise the argument that the NSA program its self does not bring in enough information to track down these terrorist plots. Tho stated by the senator that the plan is working, it is controversial on how much information brought in by this program that should be declassified to the public. As of now, most information of terrorist schemes are classified privately by the government.
Monday, September 9, 2013
fast food employee debate
Jesse Mohring
9/9/13
Civics 12, d block
Mrs.Schiesels
Fast food employee blog #2
From reading the article on the fast food strike which occurred recently on August 29th, the workers have made it clear that they want some rights re-standard. Some of the request that was stated in the article in which was striked for was to increase wages, respect, communication, water, and air conditioned kitchens. This request of air conditioned kitchens, respect and water, is all understandable and realistic, but higher wage for 15$ per hour, is asking for a bit much. I believe that Mc Donalds is at a fault if water, air conditioned kitchens and respect is not a common for it's employees. But Mc Donalds CEO stated that the jobs are not for those who want to raise a family but the opportunity for teenagers. The employees are the employees, not the CEO, so they shouldn't argue the salary of the CEO at 13 million per year to what they make at minimum wage of 8.50$ an hour. Its not a fair comparison. its not fair because the CEO is the CEO for a reason, and not the employee.
The labor and work that consist of the job is not worth 15$ an hour. This is hard to accept but the truth that the job of Mc Donalds is used in the references in which it is used in. The argument of McDonalds is that it is not a job worth 15$ an hour.
9/9/13
Civics 12, d block
Mrs.Schiesels
Fast food employee blog #2
From reading the article on the fast food strike which occurred recently on August 29th, the workers have made it clear that they want some rights re-standard. Some of the request that was stated in the article in which was striked for was to increase wages, respect, communication, water, and air conditioned kitchens. This request of air conditioned kitchens, respect and water, is all understandable and realistic, but higher wage for 15$ per hour, is asking for a bit much. I believe that Mc Donalds is at a fault if water, air conditioned kitchens and respect is not a common for it's employees. But Mc Donalds CEO stated that the jobs are not for those who want to raise a family but the opportunity for teenagers. The employees are the employees, not the CEO, so they shouldn't argue the salary of the CEO at 13 million per year to what they make at minimum wage of 8.50$ an hour. Its not a fair comparison. its not fair because the CEO is the CEO for a reason, and not the employee.
The labor and work that consist of the job is not worth 15$ an hour. This is hard to accept but the truth that the job of Mc Donalds is used in the references in which it is used in. The argument of McDonalds is that it is not a job worth 15$ an hour.
Friday, August 30, 2013
Civics
William A. Galston stated in a recent article in the New York Times Sunday Review, "Jury duty is mandatory, why not voting?" I believe jury duty is not a fair comparison to weather voting should be optional or mandatory. They are both proposed by the government but jury duty you have to agree with the same out come, where political voting is built on disagreement. Jury duty is selective with more quality citizens where voting is so broad it can observe the obliviousness of its people which would be resulted in the poles and election. more If we were to take after Australia's mandatory voting, we would be asking for every election to be voted with more people not knowing what is going on. If you lack background knowledge and do not have a good idea of your nations surrounding politics then you shouldn't vote. The belief of enforcing this law by the Australian government is citizens would be forced to be aware of what is going on, there for they would follow through and bring more accurate voting.
The Australian government supposes that this move would be for the best for the voting and electoral system and for the citizens of Australia. But people cant mentally be forced nor can truly be interested or care in politics. This would make them inadequate to vote. there for the government would be asking for more oblivious voters. If this system was to be in place, it still wouldn't control the way people care or think about their nation's politics or of what is going on in their government. It may to some, but the Australian government is making it seem as if it would change everybody's thinking. It wont.
To quote from Jason Brennan, whose article on mandatory voting was published in the New York Times Opinion Pages, "Higher voter turnout won’t solve our problems, because high turnout is itself a problem."
The Australian government supposes that this move would be for the best for the voting and electoral system and for the citizens of Australia. But people cant mentally be forced nor can truly be interested or care in politics. This would make them inadequate to vote. there for the government would be asking for more oblivious voters. If this system was to be in place, it still wouldn't control the way people care or think about their nation's politics or of what is going on in their government. It may to some, but the Australian government is making it seem as if it would change everybody's thinking. It wont.
To quote from Jason Brennan, whose article on mandatory voting was published in the New York Times Opinion Pages, "Higher voter turnout won’t solve our problems, because high turnout is itself a problem."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)