 |
| Psst, what did you get for number 2? |
Our first current event topic is one that is central to the meaning and practice of any democracy, and a topic that has had a difficult and ever evolving past - voting. As all of you I'm sure know, the power to vote in a democracy is the most important tool citizens have in order for their voices to be heard and represented. The power to vote for ideas and candidates you believe in is an essential part of any definition of democracy, however it has not always been a power extended to all. As we will learn in class, the right to vote was originally only given to white men with property (we'll get into why later). Through the passage of the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendments the right to vote was extended to include all citizens over the age of 18 regardless of race, sex, gender, or economic status.
While these landmark amendments succeeded in extending the right to vote to all Americans, this increase in our voting population has come with some costs. One of the largest is that, as the number of eligible voters increases the percentage of those voters who actually vote has decreased. Currently, the U.S. has one of the worst voter turnout rates of any western, industrialized economy. The increase in the voting population has also made it harder for politicians and political parties to communicate with such a large group of potential supporters. As a result of these two issues, the right to vote and the system in which we vote have become increasingly important topics in American politics.
Below are two articles both on voting in America. The first article is about a recent Supreme Court decision dealing with an Ohio law that allows the state to delete registered voters from their voter rolls who, "failed to vote for six years and did not confirm their residency". The second article is about a controversial, but interesting, new voting system being used in Maine for the first time.
Article 1 from USA Today:
Questions for Discussion:
- Do you agree that states should be allowed to remove voters from their voter rolls?
- Is it ever acceptable for states to take away a citizen's right to vote?
- According to the article, why would this decision benefit Republicans and hurt Democrats?
- How do you think the Court's decision will impact voter turnout and the upcoming congressional elections in November?
Article 2 from The New York Times:
Questions for Discussion:
- How is Maine changing the way voters vote for candidates?
- Would switching to a ranked-choice system like this work nationally (i.e. in a presidential election)?
- What impact would a voting system like this have on voter turnout?
- What impact would a voting system like this have on representation in Congress?
- Would you support changing to a ranked-choice system?
Before you comment, look over both articles and the questions and decide which you would like to write about. Obviously, there are too many here for you to write about all of them in a well developed comment, so instead decided which you think you have the strongest opinion about.
I do not agree with this movement to remove voters from their voters roll. A person who does not vote for numerous years may be because they may not care who gets the position because they agree with all the candidates views. However, if eventually they want to vote in the future because they do not agree with a candidate they should be allowed to. The constitution was a set of rules made to keep America free, however taking away 4 amendments just because a person does not vote for a certain number of years is unacceptable. The article is claiming that Republicans are benefited since their candidate is most likely to win when there are less voters. Back in the 2016 election, Trump had received votes from Ohio and Florida, states who are typically democratic, yet due to less voters the Republicans overruled. This hurt democrats because they do best in high turn out elections rather than elections with less voters. After the courts decision to allow everyone to vote, I believe the upcoming congressional elections in November will be a high turn out. Since over 7,515 people have been restored their rights to vote, they will take their rights back and use it to their advantage, and vote. Maine is using a system of voting from countries such as New Zealand and Ireland. Instead of voting for 1 candidate, voters rank the candidates from their top choices to their lower choices.If one candidate receives the most top choices votes then they will win, however if not, the candidate with the least first choices votes will be eliminated and a new ranking/voting will be done with 1 less candidate. This process will be repeated until only 1 candidate is left. This rank voting system would work nationally because it gives candidates who are not everyone's top choice to still have a chance to win the election. It would be an advantage for both parties since their will be another chance for their candidate to win over the votes. The impact of this voting system would be a high turn out because it allows politicians to determine what the people want. While some Republicans do not agree with this system because they believe there will be counting errors and less people will vote once their candidate is eliminated, I believe it gives politicians a fair chance to win over the people more than one time. This voting system will benefit the people of Congress because it will allow the individual's opinions to be heard, rather than the people of Congress being a whole. I do support this new rank voting system because it gives candidates a second chance to win the votes, the people's actual opinions to be heard, and it is an experimental process to try and help fix our broken election process.
ReplyDeleteJustine,
ReplyDeleteGood first comment! Your comment is good, but it tries to answer all the questions about both articles. Next time, focus your comment on 1 article and 1-2 questions so that you can write a better more developed answer. Also, thanks for commenting early!
I agree that Maine should use the ranked-choice system because it gives the voters a chance to fully express how they feel and will help ensure that the voters picked a suitable candidate to represent them. Maine's current governor, Paul LePage, would not have won the election if the ranked-choice system was in use. This means that the state wanted a different candidate and this could have led Maine into improving their state and having a, hopefully positive, different outcome. This system could be used in the presidential election. It would create less problems in society and would ensure that the people of the Untied States chose who they best think fits the title of president and will do their best job in running our country. Also, it will give a better chance for more candidates to win and get to the top which could lead to more diversity in the election which could be what the Untied States needs. By implementing this new system into all elections it could help the country run smoother and will keep the peace. There will be people who could get their opinions out and this could be good because those opinions could actually be great ideas. There are some downfalls in this system. Taxpayers would have to pay more to use this system but overall it would be worth it. In the long run, taxpayers would pay more in the beginning to have a great leader/representative rather than not paying extra and electing a candidate who will not help the county/state and having to end up paying more for something different that is unnecessary. Overall, Maine did the right thing in choosing this system and hopefully all of the United States could transition into this system.
ReplyDeleteMia,
DeleteGood first comment!I really like the analysis you give, but you could add a bit to some of it. For example, how would this system give Americans more choice or give more candidates a chance to win? The article gives answers to these questions and next time you should try to address them if possible. Nice job!
I truly agree with the article,Vote for Me! For Second Place, at Least?, new ranked choice system of voting. The reason behind this is due to how the people of Maine are electing the their candidates. They are not electing their cities representatives and leaders by which candidates have the highest votes and what the candidates say they will do if they are elected, they are being ranked by the public own opinion on what these candidates have done for the community prior to their election and what they are doing during their election. A ranked-choice system lets the people in many cities vote for candidates that appeal to them as a good representative of their community with no bias towards their race, gender, or sexuality, just based on their actions and efforts to their campaign and the betterment of the city. For instance, in San Francisco, the first American city to ranked-choice voting, had two candidates voted for their first and second choice of being the first kind of mayor. The first candidate was the first openly gay mayor, in Mr. Leno, and the cities second candidate was its first black female mayor, in Ms. Breed. This shows that a ranked-choice voting system is not biased towards a persons skin or sexuality, just on how the city would benefit from them. I do believe that a ranked-choice system can be used nationally in presidential elections as well. why I think a presidential election would benefit from a ranked-choice voting would be due to the presidential candidate being more focused on improving their images to the public and as well as creating more positive and helpful campaigns that would appeal to the voters. This would also prevent any political drama or arguments between two or three presidential candidates due to each candidate not wanting to risk any of their voters removing them from first, second, or third place. This would mean that any presidential candidates would not have to resort to any backhanded tactics or arguments between another candidate if they want to risk their spot in the election. This would also help get rid of presidential candidate with the lowest ranking quicker and have the top three be designate quicker as well. Lastly, yes I would support changing the current zero-sum system to a ranked-choice system due to the more pros than cons of having a ranked-choice system. The pros are mainly the votes being based on the public's main opinion on a number of candidates, their is no bias towards race, sexuality, or gender, votes are given to a candidate based they are doing to improve the community and city, no one tries to sabotage or rival another candidate if they wanted to keep their ranking, and generally the candidates campaigns are positive and persuasive and meant to appeal to the citizens beliefs and wants for their city or state. The con, which are few, are mainly the zero-sum system has been used for years in any and all political elections so it would be hard to transition all elections to a ranked-choice system, taxpayers would have to pay more in the beginning of the elections, many republicans feel that a ranked- choice system is an absolute disaster due to the serious risk of voting errors and voters that will no longer vote if their top picks were disqualified, and that since a ranked-choice system is still fairly a new experiment system then their can be future draw backs if it still continued to be used. But overall, Maine, San Francisco, Minneapolis, St. Paul,and Santa Fe I believe made the right decision in building this new system that will hopefully be more improved and used in future elections in the united states.
ReplyDeleteAaliyah,
DeleteExcellent job! I like that you both summarize the article's main point and comment on them at the same time. This is good analysis! Keep it up!
Maine is switching to a ranked choice voting system which I think is a good move. This will make the voting more fair and gives the people who vote a better way to pick who they want to win. Since their governor now Paul LePage would not have won if this system was in place because he drew just over one third of the votes. If this system was in place the outcome would be different and have better changes to the state. Because if he had the least amount but of votes he would be eliminated. I think this could work for the presidential election because people will have more of an opinion base and would make things more easier. And the people voting will actually like who makes it into office and will be chosen on how the people feel is best to run the country. also the non favorable could still have a chance to win. I feel more people will want to have this system and will make more people want to vote because they will have an option on what they want. Also the politicians will be able to help the people get what they want. The congress might not like this way becaue they might think it will go one sided. But also because Republicans think there will be counting errors and people will just give up if their politician is eliminated from the race. Since they would get the least amount of votes. I would support this change to ranked system voting because it is more fair and people have more of an opinion. Also the runners in the race have more than one chance and can help the country or state in the long run if they win. So I would like to see this in the future
ReplyDeleteKyle,
DeleteNice job on your first comment! You provided some clear analysis and some good reasons why you support the change. Next time, summarize the article you are commenting on first and then provide the analysis. Good job!
I do not agree with changing the standard way of voting to the ranked way. Switching to the ranked way would be useless in the presidential election because the ranked way thrives with many candidates. The presidential election has 2 main people that take up the majority of the votes. It would have no advantage over the regular system. Plus since the ranked system costs more and could be more confusing to some, it would be a bad idea to change it. To add on to the negatives it would be one of the biggest changes to the country because it affects so many and some people probably would not like the change. All these negatives would not balance out to some positives that it might bring. Also I like to think that if its not broke don't fix it, and elections are not broken. Also some people do not know all of the people running especially independent party's for the position and only know there favorite candidate so how do they expect the person voting to rank everyone. This is why I personally disagree with the article Vote for Me! For Second Place, at Least?
ReplyDeleteJack,
DeleteGood job on your first current event comment! You provide some strong arguments against the change. Next time, summarize the main points of the article before stating your opinion - it will help give you some context. Also, would a change to ranked-choice voting allow for more than 2 candidates to run for the presidency? 46% of the voting population didn't vote in 2016 and one of the main reasons was because they didn't like either candidate. Would this change help fix that problem or would it still be too confusing and expensive to work?
I very much disagree with the removal of any and all voters from the voter roll due to absence from past elections. It is absolutely and completely wrong to take away peoples right to vote, state government or otherwise.This could harm liberal and democratic voters consist more of minorities, and less voters equal less minority voters. This will most likely push liberals and democrats to vote in future elections to keep the nation balanced.
ReplyDeletein my opinion these two articles represent regression, stopping certain people from voting at any one time, and progression, allowing people to put thought into not only the candidate they believe in, but being open minded to what the others are saying.
ReplyDeleteIf one person cannot fully support any one candidate then they should not 'settle' and vote. If you do not believe any of the candidates up for that office are worthy of it then you probably arnt looking far enough into the election to make an educated decision. If after 7 years you are very interested in a certain candidate and believe that would be best and you can't vote without having to go through the process of reregistering, you are being oppressed. Once you have the ability to vote, that is something that should not be taken away from you.
Maine is taking an innovative step into a new way of voting. This way of thinking will allow politicians to see where they land in order to make improvements for their next run that will ultimately help the people. If someone has to make a more thorough vote they may look into other candidates policies more diligantly possibly changing their mind. To address Jack Byrnes comment I do not agree, I think that the elections are very broken. the concept of an electoral college does not make much logical sense to me. Elections need to be rethought but stopping certain people from being registered does not do the job. I disagree with the article about purging the voting registry, and agree with the article about voting for all candidates in order of preference.
I agree with the article Vote for Me! For Second Place, at Least on the topic that ranked choice voting should be in place in our elections. Within this article The New York Times suggests that the solution to poor voting turnouts and creating a more fair voting system is ranked choice voting. This voting system is requires that the voter ranks his or hers 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. choice instead of voting for one politician. The winner of the elections would be determined by if a politician has more that 50% of the votes. If a runner doesn't have more that 50% of the votes in the 1st choice section then the candidate with the lowest amount of votes are eliminated. Next the 2nd choice votes are looked at and if a candidate has more that 50% of those votes then he or she wins the election. It is that simple. The benefits to ranked choice voting are that it may in fact be costing taxpayers less, there is a higher turnout rate, and voters are more diverse. The reasons for the higher turnout rate and more diversity is that voters feel that this system of voting allows them to have their voices heard and make a difference. Ranked choice voting encourages politicians to reach out to as many voters as possible instead of focusing on the majority of the public. However, this system may not work on a nation scale for like a presidential election. It won't work because this was of voting is based on the idea that more than two candidates will be running. However, in a presidential general election only two candidates run. The fix to this would have to be having only one stage in the presidential election instead of two. I would support changing to a ranked choice voting system because it may help bring America's percentage of active voters up and will help diversify votes.
ReplyDeleteMaine will begin to use the ranked-choice system of voting. This mean voters will rank their choices rather than pick one, this goes into effect if one candidate does not get the majority of the votes, then candidate with the least amount of first choice votes get eliminated and those who ranked the eliminated candidate first, then move onto their second choice to get the vote. I disagree that this would work nationally in something like the presidential election. Many voters could strongly disagree with the views of all the other candidates other than their first choice. They could become upset if their first choice is eliminated and they are forced to vote for someone they disagree with. This system could also be cheated easily in something as majorly broadcasted and important as the presidential election. However, it could help ease protests in the wake of the election, as the person elected would be someone who most people found acceptable to lead. This system would increase the voter turnout because it would give people more freedom when voting. I would support changing to a ranked-choice system on a smaller scale, such as mayoral elections, not for presidential elections.I feel that if it were implemented into the presidential elections it would stir up a lot of trouble with voters who have very strong opinions about certain candidates.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the article, Supreme Court says states can remove voters who skip elections, ignore warnings. It is acceptable to take away somebody's voting registration if they do not vote for a certain period of time. I think that if your registered to a certain party you should vote for the representative from that party. Failure to vote at all should result in some kind of penalty. This could turn out to help either political party depending on how many people aren't voting. If the court decides to make people vote or they would take it away, I believe more people would vote. This will make the citizens of our country more active in their communities.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the, Vote for me! For second place, at least? I support this article because it states how a dozen states in the U.S. use it and it works out well for them. Also it allows politicians to reach out to their citizens much easier. San Francisco was able to use this and two candidates Mark Leno and Jane Kim teamed up and had voters rank them in either order first or second, and there was a third London Breed who got the majority of the plurality votes and Kim was eliminated, but the majority of the votes went to Mr.Leno who pushed over 50%. But San Francisco is assured to have a majority of the voters happy with the new mayor by using the ranking system.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the Supreme Court ruling in the Ohio case and think it was a good decision. States should be allowed to remove registered voters from their voter rolls if certain criteria is met (and having about six years before being purged is very generous). I think, however, all states need to have universal laws when it comes to being able to purge a registered voter. I'm sure it's extremely difficult and frustrating for a state to keep an accurate voters list. States should not have sole responsibility for keeping updated records. Citizens need to take responsibility, too.United States citizens have the right to vote or not. If they want to exercise their right and become a registered voter they need to act in a responsible way. When people initially register to vote they need to be told about the responsibility that comes with having the right to vote. States need to educate people from the start. They need to tell people what the rules are. They need to advertise annually in all different ways like radio, TV, newspaper, etc to remind people about voting rules like in Ohio.If people can't read very good they will still be able to understand the rules because of the different types of advertising media used. People need to know that due to inactivity and not confirming residency that they will be purged from the voter list after a period of time if that is a rule. No one will be able to blame the post office and claim they never got a notice. No one will be able to say that they didn't know about the law. No one will be surprised when they finally decide to vote and find out they have been purged. (They should only be embarrassed). Rules need to be in place and advertised. They are not meant to hurt people. They will bring about understanding and order in all states. When rules are broken, the rights that go along (like voting rights) should be taken away. All humans learn about rules and rights at a young age. People have to take responsibility for their own actions and stop putting the blame on others. Voting is a free privilege in America. Privileges can come with conditions, and states and citizens need to work together. I also believe that if people are more aware of their voting rights and the importance of casting their vote is stressed then voter turnout will be more consistent at election time. This could eliminate the highs and lows of voter turnout giving neither Republicans or Democrats an advantage over the other. The people best fit for the job will be the elected ones.
ReplyDeleteI do agree in some regards to revoking the ability to vote from some citizens who have not voted in many years. I believe if they do not return the confirmation notice that would be sent to them and they have chosen not to vote that the governing body can remove they right to vote. I don’t agree with the way the states deal with the process of returning the citizens right to vote. It should be considered more of a reminder then a punishment. The revoking should in a way show that it if you are not going to vote then you don’t need the right to vote. It should show the people that they should be voting and being part of their society. Ohio has started this movement and it should be considered in more states around to consider something like this. Yes the right to vote is one of the things that is an appealing factor for many people coming to the US but this should become a law to show anyone living or coming to the US that they need to participate in the government if they would like to live here.
ReplyDeleteSo this article started off by explaining how a persons right to vote can be purged. It says that in Ohio after six years of not confirming their residency Ohio government will strip their right to vote.I do not agree with this, it is unjust that the government can strip a right away from a citizen just for being inactive. It isn't like that person is a known felon or mentally ill psychopath, but even then shouldn't those people get to exercise their right to vote just like everyone else. But this subject is different. This article also goes on to explain how the republicans will benefit from this law. Since this law can terminate the right for someone to vote the republicans can use this to their advantage by stopping the inner city and lower level living communities to vote and vote against them,to vote for the democratic party. Also, if this law is implemented in the future we will see more republicans in our government because the people who want to vote democratic cant. Also because of this law states can make elections very one sided, so if a republican state wants more republicans than they can use this law to stop the democratic citizens from voting. But all in all taking away one of the many great things about America from its citizens should be put to an end because is taking away people rights.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the idea in Article 1 that says states can remove voters from their voter rolls. If a vote has nor responded to any of the reminders given to them in a long few years, the state should have the right to not let them vote, because the voter has probably either moved or died. It is sometimes ok for a state to take away a citizens right to vote If that citizen has not done anything required by a person that wants to vote. You cannot let a person vote just because they want to. There are specific qualifications and things you have to do in order to vote, and if you do not do them at all, the state should have the right to take away your right to vote at all. This change to the law would benefit Republicans because they usually come out on top when there are less voters, and also this law will hurt young people, minorities, and people with low incomes. This statement will also be the reason that Democrats will be damaged after this law is passed. The voter turnouts for the elections later this year will be lower than they used to be. This is because the voters that have not done any of the things necessary to vote, but still end up voting will not be able to vote anymore. This will end up decreasing the voter turnout at the end of the elections.
ReplyDeleteIn the article titled, "Supreme Court says states can remove voters who skip electons, ignore warning" (Or Article 1) by Richard Wolf of USA TODAY, discusses whether citizens should have an inability to vote after not consistently exercising their right to vote after many years. I do not agree that states should be allowed to remove voters from their voter polls. It does not seem necessary to strip people from their right to vote after choosing to not vote for any of the chosen candidates. For example it may take numerous elections for an individual to even WANT to vote for a certain candidate. A person may not be interested in either of the candidates and shouldn't be forced to "settle" to maintain their right to vote, as Delaney's comment mentioned. If a person believes and/or likes what a candidate stands for and has to say he or she WILL use their right to vote. People should not have to choose someone they cannot support or stand by one hundred percent. This new idea would also affect minority vote. As Angel mentioned, less voters equals less minority voters. The exercise to vote is a gift that should not be taken away from us if we don't accede with any of the candidates. According to the article it states this method of taking away the right to vote from indecisive or silent citizens would give Republicans an advantage, as they benefit from lower rate turnout and Democrats do best in high turn-out elections. This is because the younger generation along with those that have lower incomes "are most likely to be disenfranchised by the state's policy" (Wolf 1). Although Ohio, being one of the places effected by this removal does have people taking its side. But the majority of people siding with Ohio and this new idea are in fact, Republicans. Since Republicans do benefit the most from this idea, the majority of the Democrats are opposing. This results in more Republicans in our government. Which can lead to elections that feel restricted and only chosen by a majority of Republicans. The votes wouldn't represent the different ideologies of American citizens as a whole. With that being said I disagree with taking away the right to vote. The right to vote is precious and it should not be biased toward one party's advantages, or even stripped away.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with states being allowed to remove voters from their voter polls. It is a right that no one should be stripped by under no circumstances just like any other right a person has. Just because a person has not voted within 6 years dose not mean that they will never vote again. A voter can just simply not agree with the candidates and chose not to participate in that years elections. I also do not agree with the states basically choosing for people not vote because like the article stated, it would best help the republicans when it is time to vote because it mainly affects minority, low-income, disabled and veteran voters. Ohio, being one of the places in which this act is being enforced and has people agreeing with the decision of people being removed but those people agreeing with this are republican and of course they are going to agree if they know it will benefit their best interest but this decision isn't benefiting the state as a whole because there are also democrats disagreeing with this. All in all, I do not agree will the states being allowed to take someones way of speaking out, which is voting, just because it can help one side or because a person is indecisive and chooses not to vote for those elections. The right to vote is extremely important and it is a way in which people can voice themselves to what they want.
ReplyDeleteNick,
DeleteExcellent first post! You did a great job stating a position and developing it with a well reasoned opinion. I particularly like that you said, " those people agreeing with this are republican and of course they are going to agree if they know it will benefit their best interest but this decision isn't benefiting the state as a whole because there are also democrats disagreeing with this. All in all, I do not agree will the states being allowed to take someones way of speaking out, which is voting, just because it can help one side or because a person ..." this a great point, and one that makes sense in the context of the article. Keep it up!
The ranked-choice system is a form of voting very popular in New Zealand, Ireland and now Maine. Ranked-choice makes it so instead of checking a box next to the name of who you want to win, you rank all the candidates based on who you think would be the best choice down to who you believe would he the worst choice. So far Maine is the only part of the U.S. that uses this, but nationally this would work very well for the country. In the last presidential election, most of the candidates were looked over while Trump and Hilary were put into the spotlight causing people to think they must pick one or the other. So having the citizens rank all candidates would bring the other candidates to light as well as the instagram famous ones. Speaking of instagram and other social media, Trump used twitter and other apps as a platform to give his opinion on everything, which favored to a large group of people allowing him to win. Yet if there was a ranking system people who only favored to a certain group would average out as maybe second or third on the rank, since their are other groups who would completely disagree and rank them as last or second to last. This would give everyone more of an equal chance to get up on top.
ReplyDeleteEmily,
DeleteNice original post! I like that you brought a fresh, new perspective to the discussion of this article! I would only suggest that you develop your idea about social media more and its impact on voting in a ranked-choice system. Well done!
Maine is changing the way voters vote for candidates by trying a rank-choiced system, in which voters choose their 1st pick, 2nd pick, and so on for which candidate they would want. The candidate with the least amount of 1st choice votes gets eliminated, and those votes go to the voters 2nd choice. The impact a voting system like this could have on a voter turnout, may make for a larger turnout. This system could help everyone feel like their voice is being heard, even if their vote is in the minority. I would support using the system on a smaller scale, such as elections for mayor or governor. It may not be the best for presidential elections due to the candidates views tending to be very different from one another, making it harder for voters to rank their choices if they may not agree with a candidate. But it's something worth experiment with, and if it works on a smaller scale, it could potentially be used for presidential elections in the future.
ReplyDeleteIn Article 2, Maine has begun to change the way they vote in elections because they don't believe that the current method of electing people is working as well as it should. I personally enjoy the fact that they are testing something new out and not just succumbing to their current ways of life. They are curious and work towards the better. The specific way that they are changing is by allowing voters to rank their candidates from best to worst, which allows for a supposedly better view on which candidates are most liked, and allows for an elected official that all citizens feel okay with. And, as it seems to be working on a state level, this would 100 percent work on a larger level, nationwide. It works better than the current system of voting, of course it will work! It would, and does, give a hugely positive and more impacting voter turnout, and it would allow for better representation of people in the Congress. Due to my personal beliefs and the data shown in the article, I would completely strive towards a better future with ranked voting. It has the potential to turn the country around, because it is better than the current system of voting. Everywhere it is currently in use, it is working excellently, such as in Australia, Ireland, and New Zealand. According to the article, this method encourages a broader appeal of candidates, which allows for more candidates that would not have been picked otherwise, like Mark Leno and Jane Kim. Even though this form of democracy is heavenly, many still question its ability to function better than any other previous methods. It is believed to be more expensive and more difficult to understand. Yet, according to the data collected and shown in the article, eight times as many mistakes were made on the gubernatorial voting method than using the new ranked method. This new ranked method also eliminates expensive runoff elections. With all of this data and my view on life, this voting method is something that can only change the world for the better. Overall, I would fully support a change to ranked voting because of the benefits it has.
ReplyDeleteArticle 1:
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with the article because taking rights away is not right. No matter how long of a break you take during voting, you are still an American citizen and have the right to speak your mind and vote for the people you chose no matter how many years you wait. I believe that it is never acceptable to take away the rights of citizens. They live in America to be free and have independence so taking away their rights just isn't constitutional and is not right. This affects both republics and democrats, the republics benefit from this because they tend to be more benefited from lower counted votes and the democrats are more likely to be benefited by high count votes, so the less people to vote the better off the republicans, but if there are more votes the democrats will be better off. I feel that if this follows through they will have more people voting and may even have too many people vote and then be over-flooded with votes causing it to be harder and more confusing to count the votes.
Victoria,
DeleteNice job on your first comment! I really like your passion, keep it up! Good job on your first current event comment! You provide some strong arguments against the change. Next time, summarize the main points of the article before stating your opinion - it will help give you some context.
The new system of election in Maine works by having voters check off preferences for candidates from first to last. The person with the least 1st place votes is eliminated. The second place candidates from all voters who voted for the loser are added to the total of the remaining candidates. I would support this state wide but not country wide due to the founders determining that the electoral college would be the best way to elect presidents. Also the countries mentioned by the articles New Zealand Ireland and Australia are a lot smaller than America.
ReplyDeleteLandon, that was what the founders thought. The electoral college is not necessarily the best way things should be happening. This is a completely different country than it was a few hundred years ago. And by the way, if you did the research, Australia is actually about the same size as the USA. This new system has more potential than any other system because of all the benefits it has. I'm simply saying, this ranking method would work excellent nationwide for reasons you may have overlooked or not seen.
DeleteLandon,
DeleteNice job connecting to the founders, but you definately need to give more explanation of why you think this system would not work within our current electoral system. Also, if you think it can't work in the US but will in other countries you must tell us why.
Maine has started to change the way they vote for their candidates by switching to a ranked choice method ( 1st, 2nd, 3rd).I believe this a great method and would work great if we went on a national level like a higher government job such as the presidential election. If we implemented this “new” way of voting into our government we would have a better look at what party the people vote for and who they agree with the most. The ranked choice method will ensure that the voters voted for who they best saw fit to sit in the presidential chair. this will increase the turnout rate for elections because i know part of my family don't vote because of lack of voting options and believing that their vote doesn't matter but if the U.S. were to switch to the ranked choice they would have another reason to vote again. I would support and love to switch to this system because it makes everything easier because it eliminates the stress of if you pick the wrong person as president because you can still rank two more candidates. It will also be great if voters were to be pure-pressured into voting for another candidate because they can still place 2 other candidates in as an option. Ranked choice is a great voting method and the U.S. should not sleep on the idea of switching to this as an alternative to what we have in place now.
ReplyDeleteNice job Josh! I like that you included your family as a personal anecdote! I would only ask that you give a little more analysis next time.
DeleteStates should not be allowed to remove voters from their voter rolls because it is their right as a U.S. citizen. It is never acceptable for states to take away a citizen's right to vote because voting is only strongly suggested,not mandatory.This decision is beneficial to republicans because they perform better in elections with less voters,while democrats do better in elections with a larger amount of voters.Also this rule specifically targets minorities and those of low income. These populations are more likely to be members of the democratic party than republicans.The Court's decision will force voters to pick candidates they don't mostly agree with, also known as picking the lesser of the two evils.However,those who have
ReplyDeletenot responded to notices, will most likely not have heard of this law if they don't keep up with their politics. Overall, I think the voter turnout will increase, but it will be skewed towards those that follow politics and the uninformed will continue to not have a voice in the election.
Yes, I agree that states should be allowed to remove voters from their vote rolls because the people who die or move to another state are still in the system, and they just add extra complication to the voting process and this could affect the results. It is never acceptable to take away a person’s right to vote because the constitution states that anyone over 18 has the right to vote, and if a state didn’t allow a person to vote, then the state would be going against the constitution. This decision will hurt democrats because the majority of people who live in Ohio are republican, so by being a republican state they are hurting the democrats. This decision could make people not want to vote because they may be against the court’s decision and this will make them not want to vote.
ReplyDeleteJoe,
DeleteThe first current event comment was due on July 8th not the 9th. Please make sure to comment on your next current even within the 2 week time period. If you cannot make it in time please be sure to contact me before the due date.
I completely disagree with the decisions the Supreme Court and Ohio have made. It is understandable that the country wants to increase it’s voting participanta number, but there are other ways to do that. States should not have the ability to take away voters from their voter rolls and the decision that the Supreme Court has made enables states to do that. Having the right to vote is one of the things that makes America the country that it is today. Taking that away is unfair and unnecessary. The article even brought up the point that doing this benifits one political party over another. It is very unfair to make a decision that only benefits republicans in such a vital role in American life. I consider myself a republican but I would not want the leader I want to win to do so unfairly. This decidion also steps on the toes of many discriminatory and racial issues. America prides itself on equality but how can we believe that when the root of our country, its voting system, is being discriminative or biased. Luckily, Ohio is not able to just remove voters. They have to wait six years for a voter to be inactive and send them warnings. If the voter fails to respond to these warnings their ability to vote will be terminated until they reregister. But what about people who are homeless and don’t have an adress for the state to send the warning to. Or elderly people who don’t understand the warning or are unable to leave their home to just name a few situations that are happening. This decision can be very bad for certain people and it is not fair to take away their right to vote because of it. It is, however, acceptable to remove voters from cotion rolls if the citizen has since passed or moved. This would be one way to efficently eliminate fraud voting, but it should be the states reponsibility to do so. Other than those specific circumstances it should not be considered acceptable to terminate someones voting registration.
ReplyDeleteChristina,
DeleteThe first current event comment was due on July 8th not the 9th. Please make sure to comment on your next current even within the 2 week time period. If you cannot make it in time please be sure to contact me before the due date.
After reading the article “Supreme Court says states can remove voters who skip elections, ignore warnings” by Richard Wolf, I do not agree with voters in certain states being purged of their voting rights. Voting is something that makes the United States unique. Many countries in the world are not lucky enough to be able to vote and choose the leaders that run their gorvernment. Voting rights are something that every U.S. citizen should have access to, whether they want to vote or not. Just because a single person has not voted in 6 years, does not mean they are not planning on doing so in the future. This all depends on who the canadites are, and how that specific person feels about who is running. Voting in the U.S. is not mandatory to everyone, therefore it is up to that person if they want to stay registered for future elections or not. This act is also benefiting one side much more than the other. The article states that “The ruling could be a major victory for Republicans, who tend to benefit from lower voter turnout, and a stinging loss for Democrats, who do best in high-turnout elections” (Richard Wolf). The republicans are the ones pushing for this act to be passed, simply because it is helping them expand the influence of their party. This makes the race for candidacy unfair, because the republicans are blocking eligible voters in which a majority affects the Democratic Party. Elections in the U.S. were meant to be clean, fair races in which all citizens have a right to speak out, and be important in their community. This act is taking away both these aspects, and it is unacceptable, and needs to be stopped.
ReplyDeleteKatie,
DeleteThe first current event comment was due on July 8th not the 9th. Please make sure to comment on your next current even within the 2 week time period. If you cannot make it in time please be sure to contact me before the due date.