What does it take to get elected in today's political environment and is that method truly democratic?

Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000168 EndHTML:0000006000 StartFragment:0000000489 EndFragment:0000005983

The true democratic way is what every candidate uses to get into office. This “true” way entitles the people to vote freely on a candidate in order for them to be elected. This still stands in our society today. Although there is a growing lack of voters in the polls every year. Voter turnout is the total number of voters who participated in an election. In the 2008 election, 38.4% did not cast a ballot. Furthermore, barley 1/3 of eligible voters participate in the midterm elections. What does this say about our society? A lack of interest for who will run our country? Or an ignorance to participate in an American duty? Another true democratic characteristic includes the varying opinion of both sides of the spectrum are clear and heard. This still appears today in our society through republicans and democrats. Both sides are either to the right or to the left. And both are able to announce and compain their ideas to the entire public. These two groups form political parties. These are groups that raise funding for their particular side. Also, they raise awareness for the parties opinion and support their candidate. Unfortunately, these individuals tend to get power hungry and they run the campaign in a viscous matter while airing campaign ads that attack the other candidate. Media has taken its toll on the outcome of many different elections. The media has gotten into every nook and cranny of the political system, and now, sometimes it is even hard to differentiate the truth. The media stretches and makes up different stories constantly about the candidates that is directly shift the views opinions on a particular candidate. This is known as media bias. I believe that this method of popularity for the candidates is not truly democratic. Media twists everything they hear and honesty, good media alone may get a candidate the win. If the outcome of an elections is in the hands of the media, we really need to over look our society and how the president of the United States is being chosen. This method is definitely not democratic. Problems in the way our elections are run that contradicts the way a truly democratic election should be run include campaign finance. In many cases, candidates practically buys the election, and this all depends on how much money the candidate has. If money is what is making a candidate win, that is definitely not democratic. Unfortunately, a candidate needs a lot of money to run, so only the rich can run. This leaves out many people who are just as qualified, maybe even more qualified, just because they are not millionaires to start off with. Maybe if we didn't rely on millionaires and money hungry politicians to run our country, it would not be so corrupt. Candidates are found now paying certain corporations and unions back because in the beginning these big corporations supported the candidate during the election. Elections now are being won by big businesses giving money to a candidate. It is absolutely unfair and unjust. Politicians find themselves indebted regarding policy's for corporations. Some of these organizations are called Political Action Comities. In depth, these are organizations established by corporations, labor unions, or interest groups to channel the contributions of their members into political campaigns Today, over 4,500 PACs are registered with the Federal Election Commission. These organizations can donate over 5,000 dollars to a particular candidate. Overall, PACs have raised hundreds of millions of dollars for a particular candidate. This is so far from the democratic way. When big businesses are buying the election, you know something is wrong. At this point, all it takes to get into office is have an excellent media crew to feed the public astonishing news about yourself, and get big corporations to buy the election for you. If a candidate has those two things, the election is in the bag. This money is known as hard money. This is money given directly to the candidate and it is funding that is repetitive and a one shot deal. On the other hand there is soft money. This is money that contributes to the political parties and then recycled into campaigns These contain large, anonymous contributions. Money is contributed directly to political parties for voter registration and organization. Ultimately, today we have swayed far from the “true” democratic way. Now elections are won by money, media, lies, and fame. When can we just have an honest election?

Civil Liberties Test

Freedoms and protections collide when freedoms to do things as one pleases collides with the protections that are necessary to provide a safe environment for oneself and others. To illustrate how this collision affects our everyday life, there are certain court cases that took place to show where the line is drawn. For the first case, it analyzes freedoms and protections in school versus freedom and protections outside of school. In the Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier case a school newspaper was reviewed and published by the principle. While reviewing the newspaper, he found two bad articles and ordered them to be removed. The students who published these brought this case to court. In the end, the rationale was made and it stated that schools have the right to refuse speech that was inconstant with the schools values. This is an instance where freedoms and protections collide. The Amendment that is associated with this particular case is the 1st Amendment, freedom of press. The students have the freedom to write about any topic they please as long as it is in the guidelines and rules of the school. The schools duty is to protect the students from material and things that may cause harm or distract the students in a negative manner. While freedoms and protections are the way they are inside a school how do they differ outside of the school? During the Near v. Minnesota case, a man published obscene facts about gangsters in his newspaper. The Minnesota officials took away the newspapers because they believe he was committing a nuisance. This was ruled later that the state authorizing injunction of the newspaper was unconstitutional. It was invalid under the 1st Amendment that the government cannot sensor a production even though the communication may be punishable. In this case of freedoms and protections that collide outside of school is differs greatly between the in school rules. The man had every right to publish his article in the newspaper and it was unlawful for the officials to take away the paper. They were trying to protect the public from a nuisance but they took it too far. The next case where freedoms and protections collide is in the Mapp v. Ohio case. In this case, a woman was convicted of possessing obscene materials after police searched her home for a fugitive. She expressed that the material (porn) that she had was her freedom of expression. The fact that the searchers used the material they found during their search for a fugitive is not allowed to be shown in court. This violates the 4th Amendment of search and seizure. All evidence obtained by searches cannot be shown in court. Freedoms and protections also collide here. The evidence was not found how it should have been. The officials were not allowed to use the material they found in court without a warrant for the material in the house. Another court case with New Jersey v. T.L.O a girl was accused in a school bathroom of smoking. The principle questioned her and searched her purse where he found drugs. This case did not violate the 4th Amendment because the school had probable clause and the student violated these laws. The student does not have freedom to smoke on school property so the school had every right to question and search her purse to protect the remaining students and try and help her. When dealing with the 5th Amendment of due process there were two cases that violated this. The first was Gideon v. Wainright. The court refused to appoint an attorney because they could only allow that in capital cases. It was judged later that the holding violated the 5th Amendment because he did not have his rights to a fair trial. The man had a freedom to a fair trial and freedom to have an attorney with him regardless f the situation. The state violated this law while trying to protect their own law. The last case dealt with Goss v. Lopez. Students were given a ten day suspension from school without a hearing so they said it violated student rights. It was ruled that students had the right to due process in order for the suspension to still happen. Their freedoms and protections collided when they believed they had a right to their own hearing and the school just was trying to protect the other students from these particular students so they disregarded the rights of the students who were being suspended. There is a fine line between freedoms and protection and it happens many times where the two get confused. One just needs to be aware of their own individual freedoms but keep in mind the protection laws that go along with everything in order to live in a safe environment.