1.) In the supreme court case, Bush vs Gore. I agree with the majority, without specific standards for gauging the intent of the voter, there was no way to determine how they meant to vote except by guessing and that would have no doubt been bias as to who you supported. Also, there had to be a time limit, the election was in November and still no one knew who the President elect was. This could have went on a long time.
2.) It takes a lot of money to run a campaign, especially if you want to win. You can easily spend $10,000 dollars on a county wide race. It takes millions to run a nationwide race. So yes there are a lot of candidates with a lot of great ideas who will never be elected or will not ever run, because of the lack of money. I think it's a big problem and I feel like we need campaign finance reform. There should be a limit to how much candidates can receive and no loop holes.
3.) I think it's pitiful that we have such low voter turn out for elections. Some countries don't even give their citizens the right to vote. I believe one of the reasons for such Apathy is that the people feel like nothing ever changes. We here politicians make every kind of promise you can imagine when their running for office and when their elected everything pretty much stays the same. I believe one way of changing this mindset is to have term limits for every office.
I commented on: Robert Cook, Stephanie Griffin, and Tinisha Key.
I agree with you on Bush v, Gore. I think Al Gore just wanted to keep counting over and over until he came out the winner. I also agree with you on Campaign Finance Reform. I think it is ludicrous how much money is wasted on a campaign when our economy is in the toilet. I also think if we were given a more convenient way to vote turnout would definitely improve
ReplyDeleteI completely agree that since the voter's intents could not be clearly seen, then anyone assuming the voter's intent might be biased, therefore, there is no accurate way for a recount. I also agree, and it is per our nation's law, that it had to be resolved quickly, and a manual recount would not allow for this. I also like your idea of a limit on what candidates can receive, with NO loopholes. It that could be enforced, it does seem that it might level the playing field and offer other candidates a chance of running. And, lastly, I too share your frustration with low voter turnout wishing more understood what a great privilidge it truly is.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you about voters turnouts. We all believe and hope for the best when it comes to election time. They all give us promises and say things will change if they get elected and when they finally do get elected either nothing happens or it all goes the other way of what they promised
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on the ones not having the money and not being able to have a chance because of funds. I do think they need to do something to change it and give some of the people that doesn't come from money a chance I think it would make a world of difference.
ReplyDelete