Requesting Input

Welcome to Fire Emblem Fusion. We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Requesting Input
Topic Started: Oct 24 2009, 12:50 PM (186 Views)
PhantomZero	Oct 24 2009, 12:50 PM Post #1
Swarley Posts: 1,767 Group: Veteran Member #1,035 Joined: January 2, 2007	I know I haven't been here for a long time but I'm hoping that won't be a major issue, and I was wondering if I could have some input here. So I have some inclass essay questions to answer on Wed. However, at the same time I have a midterm that day, a ridiculous Japanese Oral test on Tuesday, and a hueg 9 page critique project due on Monday so you can imagine how busy I must be. And above all that I have my Work-study job and my regular homework. So I'm asking you bros of FEFF to help give me feedback on these Essay questions (He's going to choose two out of these six) to help get me started and get a lot of ideas thrown around. There's no "right answer" or anything, but I need to be able to form strong supported opinions and shit. You don't have to answer all of them, but please take the time and consideration to do at least a few. Quote: 1. The United States has long regarded helping countries to democratize as a major responsibility and has even applied pressure to encourage some countries to move toward a democratic form of government. Is this appropriate for a democratic nation to do to another nation? Discuss the reasons why it is or is not appropriate, and present an argument supporting one position. 2. The mass media have been termed "the fourth branch of government." Not only must a candidate for election to a major office pass a threshold of media approval to be deemed a serious contender, but it has been said that the media's favorite often wins. Comment on the media's role in our democracy. Which democratic ideals are helped and which are hindered by what the media do? Include in your response an educated treatment of whether political outcomes are swayed by news reporting bias. 3. In other Western democratic countries, the print media are privately owned but the broadcast media usually are not. In the United States, however, there is private ownership of both print and broadcast media. What consequences does private ownership have for the news operations of mass media in America? 4. Analysts seem to agree that American political parties are increasingly polarizing. What does polarization mean? Discuss its positive and negative effects on politics. Do you think we should be concerned about polarization? Why or why not? 5. Over time, the national government in the United States has increased its area of policy influence at the expense of the states. Some critics argue that it is time to return authority to the states. What are the most cited reasons to favor policy devolution to the state government? What arguments would you raise in opposition to devolution of power to the states? 6. Some people argue that democracy in the U.S. would function better if ordinary people were more informed and more engaged in the political process. What are some common explanations for low political participation rates in the U.S.? How would politics in the U.S. be different if more ordinary people were involved in politics? In your answer, argue in favor of increasing mass participation in politics and then argue against this goal. Please Help FEFF. I'm going kinda crazy with the workload here. :< And yes, I expect serious answers here. I will personally not tolerate any bullshit in this thread because I'm under a lot of pressure here. Note: I will love you forever and ever if you help me with this. <3 Edited by PhantomZero, Oct 24 2009, 11:38 PM.
	A NEW WORLD ORDER ~Known as PhantomZero, Mr. Noogen, Yosuke Hanamura


Wirtjr	Oct 24 2009, 01:00 PM Post #2
The Train Conductor to Hell Posts: 4,657 Group: Judge Member #1,057 Joined: January 12, 2007	Quote: 1. The United States has long regarded helping countries to democratize as a major responsibility and has even applied pressure to encourage some countries to move toward a democratic form of government. Is this appropriate for a democratic nation to do to another nation? Discuss the reasons why it is or is not appropriate, and present an argument supporting one position. This one I actually have some stance on. Mainly because while it could be considered a good thing if the nation in question is a shithole dictatorship, it can still seem a bit morally presumptuous. Really the only times when we should put pressure on a government is if they're run by an unstable fruit like Kimmy. Quote: 6. Some people argue that democracy in the U.S. would function better if ordinary people were more informed and more engaged in the political process. What are some common explanations for low political participation rates in the U.S.? How would politics in the U.S. be different if more ordinary people were involved in politics? In your answer, argue in favor of increasing mass participation in politics and then argue against this goal. Mainly we have low participation because we simply don't give a rats ass anymore. We've grown to the point where we cynically believe that no matter who's elected, they're gonna lie to us, go back on their campaign promises, and simply fuck us in the ass for the next four years. ...And that's all I really got, I'm afraid. Doubt it helped much, but eh, at least I tried.
	Formerly Wirtjr, Denny Crane, Freddy Krueger, Rodney McKay, Bruce Campbell and Ash Williams Zoe Wirtjr, Be all My Sins Remember'd says: (7:48:27 PM) Pops his bones Zoë says: (7:48:54 PM) which boners and why Zoë says: (7:48:57 PM) WHOOPS Zoë says: (7:49:03 PM) omg >_>; Brawl Code: 2793-4775-6845


Kazyen	Oct 24 2009, 01:14 PM Post #3
Posts: 578 Group: FEFFer Member #1,475 Joined: September 21, 2007	>_> Edited by Kazyen, Oct 24 2009, 01:15 PM.



Soja	Oct 24 2009, 02:08 PM Post #4
Gentle Water, Crashing Waves Posts: 5,172 Group: Global Moderator Member #451 Joined: October 15, 2005	I'll give you some "strong opinions" as soon as I have my own schedule free. D=< reserves space for answers
	Mirar on Sep 8 2007 06:08 PM nigga please Fusion Universe - FEF Fanfic Slayers Forth - Slayers Fanfic Smartest Member '06 & '07 & '08 & 'o9, Favored Debater '07 & '08 & '09, Most Popular '08, Manliest '08 & '09, Author of Nightmares, Scourge of the Luxon, Rules Lawyer, Nick's Former Hero, Crysta's Lover


PhantomZero	Oct 24 2009, 02:18 PM Post #5
Swarley Posts: 1,767 Group: Veteran Member #1,035 Joined: January 2, 2007	Thanks Wirjr. It does help, don't worry. =] Thanks to you too SOJA. If you can get it to me by tuesday night (before that is preferred but no pressure) then that would be much appreciated.
	A NEW WORLD ORDER ~Known as PhantomZero, Mr. Noogen, Yosuke Hanamura


Soja	Oct 24 2009, 02:22 PM Post #6
Gentle Water, Crashing Waves Posts: 5,172 Group: Global Moderator Member #451 Joined: October 15, 2005	No problem bro. I'll try to do it tomorrow. I've got some job things I want to do and I have to errand people around and FFFF. why can't someone else learn to f'cking drive
	Mirar on Sep 8 2007 06:08 PM nigga please Fusion Universe - FEF Fanfic Slayers Forth - Slayers Fanfic Smartest Member '06 & '07 & '08 & 'o9, Favored Debater '07 & '08 & '09, Most Popular '08, Manliest '08 & '09, Author of Nightmares, Scourge of the Luxon, Rules Lawyer, Nick's Former Hero, Crysta's Lover


*Sentenal*	Oct 24 2009, 11:13 PM Post #7
When you can't make them see the light, make them feel the heat. Posts: 15,616 Group: FEFF Emperor Member #1 Joined: May 16, 2005	Quote: 1. The United States has long regarded helping countries to democratize as a major responsibility and has even applied pressure to encourage some countries to move toward a democratic form of government. Is this appropriate for a democratic nation to do to another nation? Discuss the reasons why it is or is not appropriate, and present an argument supporting one position. The two sides of this that I see: One side would argue that a nation become democratized would overall improve the quality of life in that nation. Clearly a democracy would be better for its people than a dictatorship, or something of that nature. So a country who wants to be "morally responsible" and "help better the world" would want to spread that "goodness", and apply pressure for other nations to change to a democracy. The other side would take a more isolationist view. At a nation's core, its only responsible to serve and protect its own citizens. A nation is not responsible for those of other countries. More over, some cultures may not be compatible with Democracy, and thus switching to a democracy would only cause even more problems for its people. Finally, for a democracy to take hold in a country, it has to be someone desired by its people. You can't force people into a democracy, because if you do, odds are, it won't turn out to be a democracy. Quote: 2. The mass media have been termed "the fourth branch of government." Not only must a candidate for election to a major office pass a threshold of media approval to be deemed a serious contender, but it has been said that the media's favorite often wins. Comment on the media's role in our democracy. Which democratic ideals are helped and which are hindered by what the media do? Include in your response an educated treatment of whether political outcomes are swayed by news reporting bias. In my opinion, Freedom of Speech, and therefore Freedom of Press is the second most important freedom a country can have (behind the right to bear arms). Ideally, the media is supposed to be a watchdog of the government, and is supposed to keep the government honest in its actions by reporting them to the people. These are the reasons why the media is important. But its also possible for the media to get in the way of democracy, so to speak. The Media must be unbias. If the Media has a "favorite", then that presents the problem of bias. If the media is bias, you can't trust them as much, and it hinders their primary role in our society. Quote: 3. In other Western democratic countries, the print media are privately owned but the broadcast media usually are not. In the United States, however, there is private ownership of both print and broadcast media. What consequences does private ownership have for the news operations of mass media in America? There are two different types of "ownerships", public and private. Public ownership implies the government runs it. Government run news is nothing more than propaganda. Quote: 4. Analysts seem to agree that American political parties are increasingly polarizing. What does polarization mean? Discuss its positive and negative effects on politics. Do you think we should be concerned about polarization? Why or why not? Polarization in terms of politics is when parties start to move from the political center, to one of the extremes on either the right or left. I see little good things happening with polarization. It reduces the amount of compromises both sides are willing to make, and reduces the amount of things both sides agree on. And in a system where often super-majorities are required to get something done, it often stagnates issues to death, not allowing anything to get done. I suppose this in itself can be seen as good and bad. The minority would see it as good, as often if they are opposed to what the majority wants to do, they might think something like "doing nothing would be better than doing something even worse". The majority would obviously complain about not being able to get anything done. Quote: 5. Over time, the national government in the United States has increased its area of policy influence at the expense of the states. Some critics argue that it is time to return authority to the states. What are the most cited reasons to favor policy devolution to the state government? What arguments would you raise in opposition to devolution of power to the states? Most cited reasons? This one sounds like something you would just have to good. With the second question, here are my thoughts. First off, the United States is just that, the United States. States having increased power relative to the federal government would in the end serve the people more. For example, often times people may say things like "my vote doesn't matter", or "politicans don't care about us", in regards to national elections. And this is because that for nation elections, there are just so many people, your vote is simply a drop in the bucket, and you can't really have a direct voice with them. However, in smaller, more local matters, you have a much larger voice since local politicans can be held more accountable than someone sitting in Washington DC. Like you personally would have more sway with a local state legislator than you would with a Senator, or the President. You could also talk about how originally, it was State Legislators that picked your State's Senators, rather than by popular vote. Thus this would make Senators less worried about running for re-election, and makes selecting your people for the state legislature that much more important. Quote: 6. Some people argue that democracy in the U.S. would function better if ordinary people were more informed and more engaged in the political process. What are some common explanations for low political participation rates in the U.S.? How would politics in the U.S. be different if more ordinary people were involved in politics? In your answer, argue in favor of increasing mass participation in politics and then argue against this goal. Personally, I think many people simply want the government to take care of them. Increase participation of people like this would serve to only empower the government and decrease individual responsibility. Because, quiet simply, people are selfish, and lazy, and want people to hold their hand. I don't believe that it is the government's role to do such things, yet people will try to vote in politicians who will do things like that. I think low political participation rates in the US stem from the feeling that your vote doesn't count, discussed in the last part. That, and often people are simply too busy to go and vote.



*Crysta*	Oct 25 2009, 12:26 AM Post #8
yay for conformity! Posts: 10,589 Group: FEFF Emperor Member #443 Joined: October 8, 2005	Quote: 1. The United States has long regarded helping countries to democratize as a major responsibility and has even applied pressure to encourage some countries to move toward a democratic form of government. Is this appropriate for a democratic nation to do to another nation? Discuss the reasons why it is or is not appropriate, and present an argument supporting one position. I don't see a problem with helping if they want to become a democracy, or pressuring if the current system of government the country has is clearly corrupt or dysfunctional. It doesn't mean converting to a democracy will make things better immediately and it'll bring it's own troubles, but people generally like having a say in who gets power over them. Of course, as every democracy as so far proved, it is very likely they will elect a dickhead every once in awhile. A government ran by the people is bound to be imperfect. Quote: 2. The mass media have been termed "the fourth branch of government." Not only must a candidate for election to a major office pass a threshold of media approval to be deemed a serious contender, but it has been said that the media's favorite often wins. Comment on the media's role in our democracy. Which democratic ideals are helped and which are hindered by what the media do? Include in your response an educated treatment of whether political outcomes are swayed by news reporting bias. I'm not sure if Bush was a media favorite and he still won, not once but twice even. The press's influence is nothing to be trifled with, but it's run by money for the most part, and if someone fucks up royally they'll want to cash on it. It's far more likely that the richest candidate will win, even if this candidate is disfavored by a few big-time media outlets. And though we have a tendency to think our political party is more holy than the other, the truth is that they both love to bludgeon each other by using the media as a tool. It's no wonder that unbiased media is becoming increasingly rare. We buy into it, too. If someone in office does something awful, the press will hang them, and that's something ordinary people usually don't have the power to do (well, not in these days anyway). Democratic ideals are rarely hindered by it (as far as I know libel is still against the law), but it may make you feel slimy as a person if you're a journalist who abuses their influence. Quote: 3. In other Western democratic countries, the print media are privately owned but the broadcast media usually are not. In the United States, however, there is private ownership of both print and broadcast media. What consequences does private ownership have for the news operations of mass media in America? I have no problem with private ownership -- I just would be skeptical of it. The "consequences" just seem to be dumb network feuds and blatant manipulation. But people who actually put that much trust into them will usually just be manipulated by something similar if they didn't exist. Quote: 4. Analysts seem to agree that American political parties are increasingly polarizing. What does polarization mean? Discuss its positive and negative effects on politics. Do you think we should be concerned about polarization? Why or why not? Polarization actually seems to be some sort of natural defense mechanism. In political debates, people seem to drift further into their side of the spectrum and embrace stupid generalizations about the people disagreeing with them. Politicians more or less do the same, and soon enough no one wants to agree to disagree and let some of the more insignificant things go for the greater good. The positive? Perhaps one party eventually gets everything they want for four years (Republicans before, Democrats now) much to the dismay of the other party. The negatives? Beyond making the Senate and House floors a battlefield of pompous wangst, it makes the party currently in power cocky pricks and the minority party a bunch of embittered whiners. The rest of us groan and they get a 30%< approval rating. Quote: 5. Over time, the national government in the United States has increased its area of policy influence at the expense of the states. Some critics argue that it is time to return authority to the states. What are the most cited reasons to favor policy devolution to the state government? What arguments would you raise in opposition to devolution of power to the states? See Sentenal's answer. It's pretty much identical to mine. ~~Holy shit I'm not a socialist!~~ Quote: 6. Some people argue that democracy in the U.S. would function better if ordinary people were more informed and more engaged in the political process. What are some common explanations for low political participation rates in the U.S.? How would politics in the U.S. be different if more ordinary people were involved in politics? In your answer, argue in favor of increasing mass participation in politics and then argue against this goal. It may sound cynical, but as far as I know the average citizen doesn't take much of an interest in politics, or if they do their viewpoints are usually spawned from home and they simply look for outlets who supplement what they already believe. How many people here actually get up and vote? It probably changes with age, when you finally stop taking interest in your own life and may be looking forward to the welfare of your children, grandchildren, or fellow man. It will also be different to someone from another country who had to live under a corrupt dictatorship, as they're usually more aware of how valuable your little drop in the bucket may be, and may dearly want something to change. So, in short, I'd blame apathy, laziness, and cynicism. As a sidenote: fuck you, you traitor, for only using us for your homework.
	~ Crysta, Zombie Queen


Kitty	Oct 25 2009, 12:51 AM Post #9
Is such a trend setter :D Posts: 1,620 Group: Judge Member #2,260 Joined: May 13, 2009	Quote: 1. The United States has long regarded helping countries to democratize as a major responsibility and has even applied pressure to encourage some countries to move toward a democratic form of government. Is this appropriate for a democratic nation to do to another nation? Discuss the reasons why it is or is not appropriate, and present an argument supporting one position. Isn't this what started the Cold War? (Don't worry I'm actually NOT siding with Russia on this, they're equally at fault). I don't feel we should corrupt an all ready functioning country if they do not ask for assistance. Only in serious cases where the people themselves are kept in such poor condition, or if the ask the US for assistance in rebuilding their country with a new government. That being said, we should keep our ears open to struggling nations and help out need be. Also after the country is established, we should have some part in it, not as the US, but as a part of the UN, making sure there isn't a maltreatment of the common folk. Quote: 2. The mass media have been termed "the fourth branch of government." Not only must a candidate for election to a major office pass a threshold of media approval to be deemed a serious contender, but it has been said that the media's favorite often wins. Comment on the media's role in our democracy. Which democratic ideals are helped and which are hindered by what the media do? Include in your response an educated treatment of whether political outcomes are swayed by news reporting bias. I think both sides are going to get grief by the Media, it really all depends on who can cash in on the shit flinging the media does. I remember this one time on FOX news, they were talking about this politician who was arrested for embezzling or something. Anyway they constantly referred to him as a democrat for the 3 days he was talked about... He was a republican. And to be fair, I'm pretty sure that the other two are biased in some way (I don't american news for the same reason I don't watch russian news. biased) Like Crysta said, either canidate can play up on each other's misteps and use that as their base. They shouldn't, but thats how it works >.> And that's all I'm gonna answer at the moment. I'm wayy to lazy to pry my tired brain for psudo-political mumbo jumbo XP
	I said, Mother mother mother's for babies, call me Kitty, meow Join FEFF's newly developed sister site Brand of Flame. It's the same kinda stuff you like here and more (shameless advertising) Brand of Flame Awards: Spoiler: click to toggle Holy crap I actually won ~~unopposed~~ fair and square http://stalinova.mybrute.com/cellule Clicky, become my pupil, kick Tiaro's butt Pretends to be popular on MSN [18:12] Wirtjr: It's what I planned to do gently moves you to one side as he starts whacking it [18:14] Wirtjr: ....wait, that didn't come out right


*Sentenal*	Oct 25 2009, 04:36 AM Post #10
When you can't make them see the light, make them feel the heat. Posts: 15,616 Group: FEFF Emperor Member #1 Joined: May 16, 2005	Quote: Isn't this what started the Cold War? (Don't worry I'm actually NOT siding with Russia on this, they're equally at fault). I don't feel we should corrupt an all ready functioning country if they do not ask for assistance. Only in serious cases where the people themselves are kept in such poor condition, or if the ask the US for assistance in rebuilding their country with a new government. I dunno what they teach in Russia, but the Cold War was started after World War 2, the allies (specifically the US and USSR) had to decide how exactly to deal with the defeated Germany. The Western Allies wanted Germany to be a capitolist democracy, and the Soviets wanted Germany to be a communist nation similar to their own. So they couldn't agree, Germany ended up getting split down the middle, and two super powers just stared each other down for the next 50 years.



Kitty	Oct 25 2009, 09:37 AM Post #11
Is such a trend setter :D Posts: 1,620 Group: Judge Member #2,260 Joined: May 13, 2009	I know that hun, I'm saying Stalin and Truman kept trying to recruit allies and pushed their own idea onto the surrounding allies. It became a contest because Russia thought they were being surrounded with US backed countries, while the US thought Russia was trying to become some crazy super power. Germany was split into 2 halves, as you said, but Berlin, was divided into fourths. When the US refused to pay Russia anymore money as a result of them closing down factories in Berlin, Russia got pissed.
	I said, Mother mother mother's for babies, call me Kitty, meow Join FEFF's newly developed sister site Brand of Flame. It's the same kinda stuff you like here and more (shameless advertising) Brand of Flame Awards: Spoiler: click to toggle Holy crap I actually won ~~unopposed~~ fair and square http://stalinova.mybrute.com/cellule Clicky, become my pupil, kick Tiaro's butt Pretends to be popular on MSN [18:12] Wirtjr: It's what I planned to do gently moves you to one side as he starts whacking it [18:14] Wirtjr: ....wait, that didn't come out right


*Crysta*	Oct 25 2009, 05:53 PM Post #12
yay for conformity! Posts: 10,589 Group: FEFF Emperor Member #443 Joined: October 8, 2005	Russia was a super power already, hence why we thought it necessary to get into a giant pissing contest with them. They scared the crap out of us. Now, not so much.
	~ Crysta, Zombie Queen


Soja	Oct 26 2009, 06:32 PM Post #13
Gentle Water, Crashing Waves Posts: 5,172 Group: Global Moderator Member #451 Joined: October 15, 2005	Quote: 1. The United States has long regarded helping countries to democratize as a major responsibility and has even applied pressure to encourage some countries to move toward a democratic form of government. Is this appropriate for a democratic nation to do to another nation? Discuss the reasons why it is or is not appropriate, and present an argument supporting one position. South Korea is perhaps the best example of American interventionism gone right. If it wasn't for the U.S.'s role in the Korean War, chances are that South Korea would have wound up just like North Korea: a Communist shit-hole with nothing to show for human rights, civil liberties or real equality. Ever since World War II, conflicts abroad have affected the United States in some way, be it in a influx of immigrants fleeing the conflicted area under the banner of refuge or our goods and services being impeded by rising costs. After Pearl Harbor, it became evident that if we didn't take care of problems before they became problems, then we would pay for them sooner or later, whether or not we did anything to deserve it. Therefore one could ask himself if it's not a matter of appropriateness but rather a matter of necessity. After all, no one wants to waste valuable resources on something that isn't required. Quote: 2. The mass media have been termed "the fourth branch of government." Not only must a candidate for election to a major office pass a threshold of media approval to be deemed a serious contender, but it has been said that the media's favorite often wins. Comment on the media's role in our democracy. Which democratic ideals are helped and which are hindered by what the media do? Include in your response an educated treatment of whether political outcomes are swayed by news reporting bias. Too often the traditionally liberal outlets have jumped the gun and embarrassed themselves, as was the case with the CBS Evening News during the 2004 Presidential Campaign when then-anchor Dan Rather apologized on-air for an inaccurate report on President Bush's military record. But this is not a problem limited to liberal outlets as can be examined during the Presidential Campaign of 2000 when then-governor Bush was declared the winner of the election ahead of the closing of polls in Florida. Even earlier examples exist, like the Presidential Campaign between Dewey and Truman when the former was infamously declared the winner before the final tally; an iconic photograph of the victorious Harry Truman holding the erroneous headline aloft is alien to few Americans. On a more modern angle, many have accused the network media of being in love with Barack Obama. Many conservative radio talk show hosts have slammed this as "Obamamania." Indeed, the amount of exposure afforded to Barack Obama during the 2008 campaign can be determined as grossly disproportionate compared to that of Senator John McCain, the Republican candidate during the election. Declarations of favoritism from certain commentators, most explicitly Keith Olbermann of MSNBC, who "got tingles up and down his leg" when Barack Obama took the podium, have made bias less an accusation to be proven and more a fact in this day and age. Therefore it can be argued that the media's favorite wins most of the time, but there are times when the odds are beaten. Ultimately, people decide when they are standing in front of the voting machine. What passes as journalism these days has been mocked day in and out by everyone from radio talk show hosts to popular comedians. The news media's role nowadays is relegated mostly to fulfilling our daily need of weather forecasts and traffic reports. tl;dr: Quote: 3. In other Western democratic countries, the print media are privately owned but the broadcast media usually are not. In the United States, however, there is private ownership of both print and broadcast media. What consequences does private ownership have for the news operations of mass media in America? Whereas in other countries such as Canada the media is run by the State, in the United States the media is rather a bunch of individual corporations. Whereas they perhaps started out with the noble goal of attempting to inform the public, the main motivation these days is profit, as it is with all businesses. Therefore the media will do and say what it needs to in order to gain a larger viewership and, therefore, add more value to its commercial airtime. The media is not legally held to a standard of truthfulness outside of outright libel. The media could therefore exercise censorship by omission by not mentioning an issue or a story at all and it would still count as "honest journalism." Newspapers being a more localized form of mass media could vary greatly in their tone because each has a different demographic they wish to appeal to. Urban and metropolitan newspapers tend to skew more liberal whereas newspapers in small towns and rural areas are decidedly conservative. Private ownership allows different newspapers and magazines to be tailored for their differing audiences at the cost of not giving the whole story, the whole picture, or every piece of the puzzle. Quote: 4. Analysts seem to agree that American political parties are increasingly polarizing. What does polarization mean? Discuss its positive and negative effects on politics. Do you think we should be concerned about polarization? Why or why not? People won't agree on everything. Therefore it is foolish to be concerned about polarization. Theoretically, the parties are supposed to reflect the opinions of the people they represent. If the people are polarized, then the parties will be polarized. To be concerned about disagreements is to be concerned with pleasing everyone, something which cannot be done, plainly. It's not just between parties that the polarization is occurring in. Recently, the Republican party has been experiencing internal conflict because there are those within, the elite, that wish to take the party in a more moderate direction, a fact which has alienated the conservative base and the more traditional leaders inside the party. Quote: 5. Over time, the national government in the United States has increased its area of policy influence at the expense of the states. Some critics argue that it is time to return authority to the states. What are the most cited reasons to favor policy devolution to the state government? What arguments would you raise in opposition to devolution of power to the states? When the Constitution was formed in the late years of the 1700s, representatives from each State all had their own interests and an intent on preserving those interests. Demographics have been traditionally varied in the United States, so it's natural that what is right for one State is not right for another. Therefore, States' rights were guaranteed by federation. However, the biggest flaws in the system became evident during the middle 1800s when the South decided to secede from the Union, sparking the Civil War soon thereafter. Policies which will affect not one State but all States, across their borderlines, should be decided on a federal level whereas interests which concern the local population are best decided on the State level. This system goes even further down into the regional, county, and municipal level. Quote: 6. Some people argue that democracy in the U.S. would function better if ordinary people were more informed and more engaged in the political process. What are some common explanations for low political participation rates in the U.S.? How would politics in the U.S. be different if more ordinary people were involved in politics? In your answer, argue in favor of increasing mass participation in politics and then argue against this goal. The most simple explanation for low participation in elections in the United States is that most people who can are either too lazy or too preoccupied with personal concerns to bother with it. Part of the freedom that comes with living in this country is that one can decide to either be very proactive in advancing the political causes he or she believes in or can opt out without consequence. Without consequence, that is, but that a leader or leaders which he or she doesn't agree with become their representative in the policymaking body of the nation. It is possible that one simply doesn't care enough, a problem that has been consistent throughout our history. Voter apathy tends to occur when either of the candidates available for election don't appeal to a particular person, so he or she decides that it's better to take a neutral stand and just let what comes to be come to be. One could make an argument, therefore, for making elections compulsory. While this would increase voter turnout, it would also increase the effect of ignorance on elections. People disinterested in being there, in a hurry to get things over with, would cast their vote for whichever candidate has been impressed on the mind via media exposure. The media's influence, therefore, would become more dramatic in deciding who wins elections.
	Mirar on Sep 8 2007 06:08 PM nigga please Fusion Universe - FEF Fanfic Slayers Forth - Slayers Fanfic Smartest Member '06 & '07 & '08 & 'o9, Favored Debater '07 & '08 & '09, Most Popular '08, Manliest '08 & '09, Author of Nightmares, Scourge of the Luxon, Rules Lawyer, Nick's Former Hero, Crysta's Lover


PhantomZero	Oct 28 2009, 02:19 PM Post #14
Swarley Posts: 1,767 Group: Veteran Member #1,035 Joined: January 2, 2007	Thanks guys, I really appreciate you all. <3 My midterm is in two hours and this will definitely help. :nomnomnom:
	A NEW WORLD ORDER ~Known as PhantomZero, Mr. Noogen, Yosuke Hanamura


Soja	Oct 28 2009, 08:11 PM Post #15
Gentle Water, Crashing Waves Posts: 5,172 Group: Global Moderator Member #451 Joined: October 15, 2005	No problem, br0.
	Mirar on Sep 8 2007 06:08 PM nigga please Fusion Universe - FEF Fanfic Slayers Forth - Slayers Fanfic Smartest Member '06 & '07 & '08 & 'o9, Favored Debater '07 & '08 & '09, Most Popular '08, Manliest '08 & '09, Author of Nightmares, Scourge of the Luxon, Rules Lawyer, Nick's Former Hero, Crysta's Lover


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


« Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic »