Revisiting the Constitution

"As a nation,we have come to embrace "one person, one vote" as a fundamental democratic principle, yet the allocation of electoral votes to the states violates that principle. It is hardly an accident that no other country in the world has imitated our Electoral College. If we were writing or revisiting the constitution now, we would almost certainly adopt a rather simple method of choosing our presidents: a national popular vote, followed by a run-off if no candidate wins a majority. We applaud when we witness such systems operating elsewhere in the world. Perhaps we should try one here." - Alexander Keyssar

Keyssar makes the obvious point that although the US places an emphasis on the importance and significance of the American population's right to vote, the fact is that the electoral college, therefore the state's decisions are what decide the outcome of the presidential elections. He states that we are the only nation that utilizes the electoral college and that no other nation attempts to emulate this system. Another fact he states is that by eliminating the electoral college and solely using the popular vote, it would simplify elections greatly.

The electoral college has always been a contentious and confusing topic. Many Americans probably do not even understand the concept in its entirety. I agree with Keyssar completely and believe that the electoral college undermines the principle of free open elections, because when it comes down to how a candidate will win an election... it lies within winning the electoral college. This topic resonated most with me therefore I chose to discuss it, especially because of the 2000 presidential election in which Al Gore won the popular vote but did not win the electoral college, therefore losing the election to President George. This is one of my earliest political memories and ever since then I developed a resentment toward the electoral college. If this great nation is built upon democracy and freedom then the electoral college is clearly infringing on the people's vote. It is a hypocritical process, which makes any American criticism of other "failing" governments around the world one with no basis. The electoral college has caused the loss of elections for 3 other candidates in the past and it is surely bound to be a problem once again in the future if it is not addressed properly.

The Federalist #51

"But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions."

This passage out of the Federalist Paper #51 makes an interesting connection between mankind and angels. Human nature makes man flawed and conflicted, as where angels are seen as perfection in which government would not be needed. Since humans make mistakes and are not perfect government is needed to keep them in check. Government is supposed to equal order and control. The Federalist Paper #51 also points out that government controls the people but at the same time depends on the people to function. However it also states that even with the control of the governed by the government there is a need for back up procedures to protect both the government and the people.

Choosing this passage came quite easy because of the importance of the structure that is created through federalism, and more importantly the connection between the people (governed) and the government. I believe that many US citizens neglect the power that is bestowed upon them, their civic duty to this country in the form of voting. This passage resonated in my belief of participation of the US population. If humans were able to get along peacefully or run a country without a set framework then it would already be done, but since anarchy only causes chaos and inevitable destruction, government is crucial in the growth and vitality of a nation. To me it is very intriguing that the principles that built this county place the power in the hands of the people, whom then allow a government to preside over them. It is a system which relies heavily on interdependence which makes politics that much more interesting.

Trans-National America

"We act as if we wanted Americanization to take place only on our own terms, and not by the consent of the governed. All our elaborate machinery of settlement and school and union, of social and political naturalization, however, will move with friction just in so far as it neglects to take into account this strong and virile insistence that America shall be what the immigrant will have a hand in making it, and not what a ruling class, descendant of those British stocks which were the first permanent immigrants, decide that America shall be made. This is the condition which confronts us, and which demands a clear and readjustment of our attitude and our ideal." - Randolph Bourne

Bourne is ascertaining that Americans must remember their roots. The US was created on a foundation of immigration, and its citizens are immigrants who are inevitably responsible for its future. Everything that our fore fathers worked for is a result of their persistence and strength. What is interfering in the progress of the nation is the ignorance associated with superiority of the ruling class and inferiority of the immigrants. In order for the US continue advancing and growing as a nation society must adjust its approach and mindset in regards to the immigrant population.

I could not agree more with this excerpt, which is why I chose it. These nativist attitudes have long been an issue of controversy in the US, but just recently has it stopped being so taboo. People forget that a person can be multi-national, that regardless of where they came from they can feel pride and admiration for the US which is his/her new home. Today we are able to express our feelings about the topic of immigration freely and realize that immigrants are everywhere around us. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the growing population of immigrants is on an individual basis. However one thing that cannot be argued is that this country was built on immigration and escape from persecution. The American population truly needs a refresher course on early American history, along with an attitude adjustment. The future of this great country lies on the children of immigrants and their decisions. The sooner people open their eyes and minds, the sooner this country can focus on other vital issues such as the economy, which is destroying the lower and middle class.

Power

"Half of Americans say there is too much government regulation of business and industry, by one percentage point the highest in Gallup's history of asking this question, dating to 1993. Americans were least likely to say the government regulated business too much in February of 2002, just months after 9/11 and at a time when President Bush and Congress were involved in efforts to combat terrorism and had high approval ratings. The "too much regulation" attitude held in the 30% range for most of the rest of the last decade, but jumped after President Obama took office in 2009." - Frank Newport (Gallup Politics)

This passage tackles the American population's view on government regulation of business. According to the poll conducted by Gallup half of the population believes there is too much government involvement in relation to the regulation of business. In comparison to previous polling done specifically in February of 2002 shortly after the attacks on 9/11,  Americans were least likely to believe the government was too involved in business. In fact President Bush had high approval ratings and along with Congress was extremely occupied with fighting terrorism. Opinions about too much business regulation remained in the 30% range but has increased greatly since Obama became president.

I chose this passage because I find it to be highly intriguing for a number of reasons, the first being that the American population seems most untied and on board with government decisions during times of war. Strong opinions for or against the regulation of business don't formulate until times of relative peace, or in this case until there is a change in leadership. It is also important to keep in mind that opinions shift according to which political party is in office. Mainly negative opinions arise about a Democratic president on behalf of Republicans and vice versa. However another interesting point is that even during the times of war I felt that there was not enough regulation of business and industry. Large corporations always have and will continue to receive tax breaks, the buying out of small businesses and creation of huge chain stores (for example Walmart) occur on a daily basis. To me whether or not our country is at war does not affect my opinion, support and pride in one's country should not cloud the judgement of cold hard facts and it surprised me to see that the American population is easily distracted when more than one thing is taking place at a time. Disagreeing with government actions does not make someone unpatriotic or un-American in my opinion, if anything it makes you a assertive individual who pays attention to its government's actions. I believe that this is still an issue even though Obama is a democrat and in office, in the sense that many Americans believe that because of him business and industry is being too controlled. In the end it should be about the benefit of the country and its people as a whole, these two go hand in hand and instead of putting one ahead of the other both should be upheld.