It has been said, "The Constitution reflects a basic distrust of direct popular government." Suppose you had a chance to design a government. What sort would you design?
Which would you rather have?
1. A political system with the greatest possible political democracy-that is, one that translates popular demands into laws and policies as effectively as possible
or
A political system that gives elected officials considerable latitude to do what they want to or feel is best without having to worry too much about public opinion.
2. A political system that can make major changes quickly
or
A political system where major changes in policy are very hard to effect and happen.
Add at least two other designs that you would include in your government.
****Remember, you are to answer this blog and then come back to blog and respond to one of your classmates.
97 comments:
I definitely believe that the a political system with the greatest possible political democracy would be better. Democracy was created in this country so people could control government and have the right to rebel if they don't agree with something the government is doing. If elected officials made all the decisions and public opinion had no control over the government, then the government is not truly democratic. Of course, there is a middle ground. The public should not vote on everything and the elected officials should not have complete control over laws.
I think a political system that can make major decisions quickly will not only be more effective in our country, but will make the general public happier. By dragging on major decisions, the general public begins to forget their opinions in the first place and they just want the issue to be resolved. If major decisions can be made swiftly and without a lot of back-and-forth, people can move on with their lives without wondering when the final decision will be made.
In my government, I would also leave social issues such as gay marriage out of politics. It should be no question that people who love each other, despite gender and sexuality, should be able to get married, and have legal rights with their partners. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say anything about marriage. Social issues should definitely be kept out of the Constitution as well. Opponents of gay marriage wanted an amendment to be made to the Constitution that specifically states that marriage is between a woman and a man only. Not only is this outrageous because "all men are created equal", but people should keep social issues out of the Constitution. Prohibition was one of the worst things that happened in America and is a great example as to why social issues brought into the Constitution fail.
In my government, the government would also look over businesses. Not be involved, per se, but definitely be aware of what businesses are doing. I think it is important for the economy to run its course and for corporations to do what they want, but the government has to be involved to some extent and to make sure that corporations aren't doing anything illegal just to make a profit.
Having the chance to design a government, I would create a political system that gives elected officials considerable latitude to do what they want to or feel is best without having to worry to much about public opinion. In this type of government, the public is being trusted with the decision of electing the members of the political party’s. The public should elect people who they believe they can trust, and those that have the citizen’s best interests in mind. The public has done there job by getting the political members elected, and should now trust them to do what is right. Once the political party members have assumed there position, I believe they should have the ability to do what they feel is in best interest. They should not have to worry about whatever citizen will think, as long as he is acting in best interest. The political leader should in fact take the citizens wants into consideration, but he should have the power of the final say in the matter.
In this political system major changes should be able to be made quickly. This is important in times of crisis. Our government should not have to pass decisions through many different political parties, before being approved. Certain parts of the political party’s should have the right to make immediate decisions, laws, or changes when needed.
Though this design is giving more power to the government. It is important to understand that the political leaders are being given more rights, to act in best interest of its citizens. If the government becomes tyrannical, or in anyway attempts to take away the basic, natural rights of the citizens, the citizens then have the power to revolt. The citizens also still have a voice in the government, thought every decision may not be made with everyone’s approval, the citizens should let the government understand what they want. It is then the government’s job to act in best interest of its people.
In this government the president will have the right to serve a six-year term. The extension of serving time, will give the president more time to complete the tasks he wishes. He will not be worried about how certain things will affect his re-election. The president would act in favor of what is in best interest of his country. He would be able to have the time and power to carry out or initiate all the promises he made to the people.
If I were to design my own government I would rather have a political system with the greatest possible political democracy over one that gives elected officials the power to do what they feel is best. The main reason for this is mainly because even though the elected officials have more knowledge on the foundation and structure of what our government would need. I feel like we as the people actually know what’s going on in the world in the sense that we’re actually living it. People who are elected into office usually have lot’s of money and know what’s going on in the rich upper class sense, but they don’t necessarily have the same experience in struggling that the middle and lower class do. Which is why If I had to make my own government I would let the people decide which laws and policies were effective to be used quickly and which are not. When it comes to making changes I would also rather have a poltical government making major changes quickly as opposed to making major changes in policy are hard to effect and happen. If it takes a policy to take in effect after more than a couple of years the people become very restless. As Americans we want changes to come quickly, not in like 10 years after we’re all dead. What’s the point of making the people struggle for 10 years when we can end it in 5? Not only that but if I were to design my own government I would elect officials to make decisions when it comes to corporate businesses as well as small businesses by giving money to those businesses who need it and taxing more money to businesses who are making more than enough. I would also make it so that different people from each class would have more of a say in what goes on in the government without prejudice. This would be done by allowing the people to vote for what they want and making laws and policies that will help promote the needs of all three classes in mind.
I support the political system that provides citizens with democracy. I believe that everyone has a right to democracy and to take that away would eliminate our rights that are given to us as citizens. I don't support the other option because one leader shouldn't make decisions that they think is right because different people have different opinions.
In my government I would set up a democratic political system so everyone can have a voice. I agree with BLOGGER94 in the sense that social issues should and will be seperated from constitutional issues. I would also inflict a harsher law system to stop all illegal activities going on such as piracy, which is costing America to lose millions of dollars, and illegal activities like smuggeling drugs into this country.
I think that a political system with the greatest possible democracy would be better. The initial definition of the word democracy is "the rule of the people." This if the common populace does not like what is going in, then they should have the choice of stating their opinion. If however elected officials controlled the government, then democracy would not exist. Essentially, elected officials should guide the people and represent them. A government should not be too weak nor should it be too strong. Besides, if a government was "ruled" by elected officials, it may escalate the chance of becoming a tyranny.
Moreover, a political system that can and will make major decisions quickly is more efficient. The congress and the President will get the job done and make the nation happy and content. The process of passing a law or eliminating a tax should not be tedious nor should it take a long time to accomplish.
In my government, i would abide by the ideal constitution and make sure that all citizens' natural rights are protected. Many situations have occurred where people feel that their freedom or liberty was being taken away. All citizens should have the right to property, the right to happiness, and the right to say what he or she wants. If any person's natural rights are taken away, then America would not be considered the greatest democracy.
Another design i would focus on is an organized military. I believe that a strong endorsed military is vital for a confident and powerful nation. The army is what protects us from other invaders and terrorists. The military should be organized and efficient. Also, money should go in to the military because it is an essential part of the country's protection and security.
If I could design my own governmet, I would completley choose a political system with the greatest political democracy that translates popular demands into laws and policies.
Also there would be a political system where major changes in policy would be easy to make. Times are changing dramatically, and we live in a new world. Many changes are occuring whether it be war tactics or social values. We should be able to adapt our laws to fit our new society.
In addition to my previous desgins, I would split the social and political issues apart. In today's government, politicians are getting too involved in private situations. Nowhere does it say under United States law that a government can alter lifestyles of citizens. Issues such as abortion and civil rights for same sex couples are being revoked because socially backwards politicans think that they can have the country follow thier beleifs, religous and all. I feel that social issues should be handled with liberal insentive while political matters such as economic and foregin affairs should be given to conservatives who want to preserve the countries strong economic power in the world. Sure this country may have mentioned god in the constitution, but it doesn't say who's.This is not a chrisitian nation. Our polocies shouldn't revolve around thier views just because many people fall into that religion. There is a separation of church and state for a reason.
Lastly, I feel that our nation gets too involved in oversea situations, situations that have nothing to do with our lives. We are sendings billions of dollars to countires that want us dead... for what? we also volonteer too much to be the "hero" of the world. I just gets us into trouble and we should foucs our rime and money on issues involving our nation and our war we are currently fighting. My government wouldn't meddle in other countires' buissness and I would focus on fixing our economy and winning this war on terror.
I believe that in government, it is the people (legal citizens) who have the right to the greatest say in how they should be ruled. I would rather a political system that has the greatest possible political democracy, one that translates popular demands into laws and policies as effectively as possible.
Representatives of the people should listen to what their constituents want, and act on that. That is their job. Once they know what the people want, they can do some fine-tuning if necessary.
Though it does sound great for government to work fast and get things done right away, quick major changes can hurt the country, especially the economy. If things change at such a drastic rate, investors would be uncertain to invest in the economy, they would want to keep they're money safe. The process should be not so fast because this will maintain order.
In my government, I would decrease government spending to a minimum. Only when necessary should the government have to take money out to fund projects. Also, we shouldn't be giving money to countries such as Pakistan, Afghanistan and other countries that don't even like us, when we have people who are in the United States who are in poverty. I'm not saying that we have to 'hand-feed' or go out of our way to help them, but we should at least be able to decided where our money is going and who we are helping.
In my government, I would crack down on illegal immigration. I understand there are reasons that people would leave their homeland, but millions of other people came over this country the right way, there should be no exceptions. Illegal immigrants shouldn't get federal aid either (The Dream Act). They haven't paid any taxes, how is it the least bit fair that people who pay so much money in taxes to them?
Lastly, the issue of gay marriage. Everyone is equal, no matter race, religion, creed, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Nobody has the right to tell anyone who they can or cannot love and marry. The Constitution also says that there is a separation of Church and State. So people can't say that it's against their beliefs to make gay marriage legal. Spiritual Beliefs and religion should have nothing to do with the way the government is run because everyone believes in different things.
I believe that the a political system with the greatest possible democracy would be the most effective. In a government where popular demand, the people would have a reason to agree to laws because they would include what they wanted. Giving the people democracy give them more rights, gives them what they want and what is best for them. Also this would make the government more efficient and timely.
A political system that makes major changes quickly. Society especially today is very fast moving, the government should be able to keep up with the fast pace of everything that is changing. This would make everything better fitting for the time. The laws should be able to keep up with the house of representatives. Laws should only have two years to be put into effect or they should be revised.
My government would include free marriage for all. Love comes in all different ways so no one can be denied the right to fall in love. Also I believe that love was not in the constitution, so the government should not have the right to interfere. Also my government would focus on taxing those who make more money. The middle class I feel gets all the trouble with taxes. The wealthier people should not have the right to be exempt from taxes. They should be paying more of a percentage because they are more able to pay this amount. The perfect society would be where everyone is able to say what they believe and there are compromises work out problems.
1. I think that a political system with the greatest possible political democracy, one that translates popular demands into laws and policies as effectively as possible, is the better form of government. The people of this country know what they want and they will try as hard as possible and argue and demand like crazy until they get what they want. In order to make the people happy, the government has to do what they say as fast as possible. This type of government will do just that and will get more support and hope from the people that things are going to get better. However, this should not be implied on all matters. Sometimes the public doesn't know what they are doing or what the effects of their decision has on the big picture since they mostly car eabout how the laws benefit themselves only. So yea the public opinion should be answered and put into law as fast as possible as long as it does not interfere or cause more problems than we already have.
2. I think that a political system where major changes in policy are very hard to effect and happen is the better choice because rapid change can upset alot of people as well as the balance of things. Change is usually a good thing but too many rapid changes in a small amount of time can cause devestating effects on many people and the political system itself. But laws should not be impossible to pass and changes should not be extremely difficult to make because just as the times and people's opinions change, so do some laws and regulations that are in effect.
If i were to create my own form of government, I would have it set up so that everyone would be able to voice their opinions freely except there would be a way for something to actually be done about what the people want. The peoples demands would then be considered by a specific group of people who are trained to figure out all of the pros and cons of passing a law and then if it can be done make it done as fast as possible. If it's a bad idea, then a similar law can be passed or it can be announced to thepublic why such a law would be a bad idea instead of just denying it without the people knowing why.
Also in my government, there will be more people in charge of how much money the government spends so that they can all opinionate on what should and should not be spent so that none of the money is wasted or so that too much of it is not spent on one thing. Any greedy person or anyone that shows any sign of spending the governments mmoney needlessly will be removed from office and replaced immediatly. It will be like a system of checks and balances except it will be for what the government is spending.
If I could design a government, the government would have democratic ideas. I would have a political system that makes popular demands into laws and policies as fast as possible. I believe that this would work efficiently because the government should be based on the people’s ideas and needs. People would know more about current events and how it affects them rather than elected officials. In addition, if we did not have democracy, there would be tyranny. Therefore, I think that we should still elect representatives because they have knowledge and experience about the government.
It would be better to make changes quickly rather than taking a lot of time. I think that there are many ideas in the government and when one does not work, another one comes up. The government is constantly changing its mind so quick changes are necessary.
My government would provide jobs for the unemployed. Creating jobs would lead to less poverty. This method could help the economy and make everyone optimistic. Another design in my government is that low-income families are eligible for health care. I believe that everyone should have the option to a good health. With good health, many citizens can look for jobs and support their family.
If i could create my own government I would have one that could reflect the demands and needs of the popular vote. I would create a government that could allow people to vote directly on laws, policies and for all of the people with major positions in the government. Also, in my government a law or policy can only be passed by the popular vote if the number of votes exceeds a certain percentage of the population of the effected area. If the percentage is too low then the representatives that govern the area can vote. I believe a direct democracy in which the people have an influential say in government can allow for this nation to accomodate more efficiently to the will and needs of the people.
A government in which major decisions can be acted on quickly would allow for the government to act on issues that can turn into catastrophes if enough time is allowed to pass. A government that acts rapidly on pressing issues would avoid either ignoring the issue or just debating on the issue until it is too late for a remedy.
I would also have a government in which health care is provided to all citizens by increasing federal funding through deducting a small percentage of the salaries of the working middle and upper class and deducting larger percentages of those who can be categorized in the top percentages of wealth in this country.
My government would also have strict surveillance of the activities in the stock market and of large corporations to insure that they abide by the law.
If I were to design my own government, i would rather have the political system with the greatest possible political democracy that translates popular demands into laws and policies as effectively as possible. I feel that this way would let the public be heard. In a democratic situation, the voices of the people should be heard. With all of the mistakes that politicians make on their own, the government can become corrupt..take out the voice of the people and what they feel is needed in the country, and nothing will ever get done. There would be no real democratic government if the people were not acknowledged.
Even in a large country, like the United States, a political system that can make changes quickly is usually the most effective. If the voices of the people are considered and changes were made to better the country, people might be more relaxed and trust their government more. Being efficient in life only results in success.. a government should therefore be successful in being efficient in making appropriate changers.
In my own government, politics would simply be politics. The media would not be able to influence votes, get involved in the personal lives of politicians and therefore what they do for the country would be the only thing that matters.
Also, my government would not have laws based on peoples preference such as gay marriage. People should be able to be with who they choose to be with.
A government under my own design would give a fair amount of latitude to elected officials rather than leaving laws and policies to be translated from popular demand. I believe that a government can be run more smoothly by giving sufficient power to appointed officials who represent the opinions of the public. I prefer the latter option to the former because in a political democracy where public demand controls government action there is a large margin for error. With most political decisions citizens often have opposing opinions about what actions must be taken. However, in electing competent representatives, the public places their trust in a group of intelligent individuals intended to make intelligent decisions on their behalf and for their best interests. Because the public controls which officials are to be elected they are still involved in the decision making process but not directly involved in a way where every decision needing to be made will create a problem due to massive division amongst opinions and a sort of majoritarian politics in which those who are less informed or capable of deciding what is best are involved in making crucial decisions. So long as elected officials are appointed by the people themselves and so long as re-elections are on a semi-regular basis I believe that a government can function at its best when power is in the hand of appointed representatives.
Also, I believe that it is most efficient for major changes in policy to be more difficult and time consuming to achieve for governments. I believe that the entire reason for appointing representatives to make decisions for the nation is to diminish the number of political mistakes or regretful decisions made. In addition to appointing capable, intelligent leaders, have a more drawn out decision making process leaves more room for discussion and refinement of policies before a new law is passed or a new policy is enacted. In this system, the most informed and beneficial decisions can be made by a group of capable leaders during a sufficient period of consideration.
A political system where major changes in policy are very hard to effect and happen seems like an unwise decision when designing a government. However,I think that it is the best option when choosing between too much control by elected officials, or making change too frequent. If I were designing a government, providing benefits for everyone in society would be my first priority, that is, as long as no one was put in danger as a result. Also, I would not permit any elected officials to take control of the government and forget the public opinion. I would want everyone to feel equal and safe under my government. This would not be likely if all decisions were based solely on the desires of those in charge, which can be proven in past governments.
As far as change goes, I feel that when it happens too freqently, it could become a negative issue. If members of society are usatisfied with the government they live under, I believe they should all have the power to improve it. However,if people request changes every time they feel that something is unfair, it could cause problems to the nation as a whole. So, I feel that change is a necessary part of a successful government, but to a certain extent.
If the public opinion influences the government, and the needs of everyone in society are met, then change should not be the next move made by government. Under my government, any request to change the system would have to be put under great consideration for a period of time. This can ensure that by allowing this change, no one in the nation will suffer.
My government would not permit any privelages to be given ot those who make more money. Giving a break to those who need it the least would not be tolerated. The unemployed and underprivelaged would be assisted, and the welfare of everyone would be a main priority. Everyone would have equal rights, but they would be limited when concerning the safety of others. Voting would be the main mehtod in making major decisions.
1. If I were to design my own government I would chose a political system that gives elected officials considerable latitude to do what they want. Not all citizens are educated enough to have a large say in what goes on in the government and many are easily persuaded to think certain ways. There are millions of people in this nation with many different political views, values and beliefs. The majority may only result to be a small percentage of this. What people demand may not be best for the government and/or the nation as a whole. We elected officials because we agree with their political viewpoints and trust that they will do what is needed to benefit us in the long-run.
2. I would rather have a political system that make major changes quickly, because in times of crisis things need to get done as soon as possible. Sometimes policies need to be altered in order to benefit and protect the nation and its citizens. If need be, the government should be able to put their personal opinions aside in order to make quick decisions that will benefit and protect the nation.
-If I were to design my own government, I would make laws on immigration more strict. I believe that the government needs to be more strict with security at our borders because it is not fair to our citizens. It is not fair that illegal immigrants are taking jobs from the unemployed citizens, putting their children in our public schools, receiving government aid, while not paying our taxes or speaking our language. I also would make it so that any legal immigrants should be forced to take an English-speaking class. Many places you go (stores, restaurants, etc.), there is not one person who can speak fluent English. If you live in America, you should have to speak English.
-I would also make the process of receiving government aid and welfare (i.e. free healthcare, food stamps, etc.) more difficult and much more strict. Many people take advantage of what the government offers as aid. This causes people who truly need it to survive financially to get denied government aid. I believe the government should investigate applicants further, rather than reading a piece of paper that states the person's salary, because many people work "off the books."
If I were to design a government I would most defiantly choose a political system with the greatest possible democracy rather then a political system with that gives elected officials considerable latitude to do what they want. That is because the greatest possible democracy is whats best because it allows the people to have a certain say in the government and most importantly go against the government for what they do not agree on. That is why having a political system were elected officials do whatever they please is not good because no one would have a say in government besides those officials and that sure is not the majority. Since that is not the majority it means it is not the best possibility.
Also, I would design a political system where major changes in policy occur quickly. That is because they will actually be changed soon meaning that during that time what we need changes will actually be done and not years later.
Also I would add to government that different people from different class and salaries represent what they have to say so everyone will know what is really going on and not just based on a few people. According to this people who are extremely wealthy should not be exempt for paying taxes. They should actually be helping the economy in a way and not just taking money.
1. I would rather have a political system with the greatest possible democracy. Why should an elected official decide what's right for me? Who is he/she to make changes based on his/her judgment. The people in America need to decide what laws and changes need to be made. A democratic political system is the way to go, where the people's popular demands are implemented.
2. I would also rather have a political system where changes could be made quickly. If changes took a long time to be implemented, they could be forgotten as the years pass by. Years later, when new problems arise, what proposed law would have precedence over the other? That is why a political system where changes could be made quickly would be best.
In my own government, I would choose two new designs - better money spending and new ways of interacting with the community.
To implement better money spending, I would try to reduce costs as much as possible in order to have money for more important things such as school. Instead of spending $28 million changing every street sign in New York, we could be putting money towards our schooling and education.
In terms of interacting, there are more and more ways of interacting with people now than ever before. Why not use that to our advantage? If I could design my own government, I would use popular websites such as Facebook and Twitter in order to see what people are frustrated/happy with the most. Calling to complain is outdated and ineffective when it comes to timing. Finding ways to interact with the people could only be beneficial to the government.
If I were to design a government, I would agree with the majority of my peers on this blog - Option 1, a political system with the greatest possible political democracy. The reason the United States is a democracy and not a monarchy or other form of governmental system, is so the citizens have a say in their government.
The majority rules - if people want certain laws and policies enacted, it is the responsibility of the political system to put those policies into effect - as efficiently as they possibly can. No one wants a government that does not listen to their needs or demands; no one wants a ruler to enact laws based on his/her own opinions. If a representative forces his/her own laws onto the people with no regard for their concerns, the representative will not gain trust or supporters. The democracy would turn into a dictatorship. The United States' duty is to its people, not few elected officials.
A political system that can make major changes is vital for such a large nation. Times are changing fast. With all sorts of new advancements and developments being put into place, the government needs flexibility. From the very beginning of the nation up until now, politics and individual views have changed numerous accounts of times. The current values and ideals of our Republican and Democratic parties have evolved from other parties; their beliefs have changed due to several factors. Room for improvement is essential. No nation is perfect, and no one wants to wait years for changes in policy to occur. People would lose faith in their representatives and the government would go to ruin.
In my governmental system, I would make both public and private less expensive. Hardly anyone these days can get a job as soon as they graduate high school, with enough money to support them. At least an undergraduate degree in college is necessary for an individual to get hired to an average paying job in today's economy. Colleges still have the right to choose which students they would accept, however, they should get more funding from the government and less from the individual students for whom it takes half their lifetimes to pay back their debts.
A second design I would include in my government would be a better system of taxes. I believe households should be taxed based on family income - the more money made, the more taxes. This revenue system would range, with people under a certain average salary taxed the minimum required amount, and wealthy capitalists the most. Tax breaks and loopholes should not be allowed - everyone must pay their designated amount. In order for this to be a fair policy, homeowners should know exactly where their money is being put, and they should see their money implicated in the exact ways they are paying for.
1. I would rather have a government with a political system with the greatest possible political democracy. This means that a political democracy would translate popular demands into laws and policies as effective as possible. I would rather have this one because people in the United States deserve and should have political democracy and freedom.
2. I would rather have a political system where major changes in policy are very hard to effect and happen. I would rather have this one because I think before the government makes any major changes they have to think about it. By the policies being hard to change it gives time for congress and the government to think about it. I believe every aspect of the situation should always be taken into account and never make hasty decisions. I think by having a system like this it would help make better decisions for the country.
In my government, I would really like to have a direct democracy but I think it would be difficult to run. I believe direct democracy is a great idea but may not be realistic for a huge country like the United States. But with all the technology we have I think it's worth a try and we may be able to have a successful direct democracy. I think direct democracy is great because everyone could be involved and speak for themselves. I think with all the technology we have we would be able to have a successful direct democracy.
Another design I would want in my government is the majority always ruling but not infringing on the minorities. Obviously you can’t infringe on everyone's civil rights so you have to be cautious of the majority ruling when it comes to the minorities. I think the majority should always rule in the government. I think that is the fairest way for everyone.
In response to Dalia, I would have to agree with your proposed change to the price of colleges. Some schools I've been looking in to like NYU are around $40,000 - $50,000 a year... that's just ridiculous for schooling. Especially in this economic crisis when no one is hiring, how am I supposed to pay for this? I wouldn't want to burden my family with such a high tuition either.
With this change, it would make school more affordable so I can actually go to a college I want to go to.
If I could design a government, I would definitely design a political system with the greatest possible political democracy. When people feel like their opinion is being heard, that is when they are most interested. People like to rebel for example when a teacher tells a student to stop talking, the student usually just gets mad and keeps talking. You can use that theory for a government, where elected officials set the rules without really listening to what the people have to say. People wouldn't listen, wouldn't care, and would eventually rebel against the leader. In a democracy peoples opinions are heard and can actually help shape the government, there would be no animosity. Popular demands would turn into laws and policies as effectively as possible if they are backed up with true and good reason.
I do not believe a political system that can make major changes quickly would be very effective. I feel the process would have no thought put into it, and that many laws and policies will be changing way too much. A political system where major changes in policy are very hard to effect and happen just seems like the best bet. People can have a say in the government but they can not run the government. If laws and policies change quickly and constantly it will be harder for everyone to keep up and it would cause confusion.
In my government I would change the fact that the president serves 4 years in each term. I believe that is way too long for a president to be serving, because years seem like forever, especially when things are not as expected. I believe it should be 2 years per term, and you are allowed to serve 3 terms. I believe this is the most fair way. If a president is elected for a third term, he must obviously be doing something right! In my government I would also take care of unemployment. I feel that it is unfair that people are able to sit and "look for a job" for 2 years and get paid for doing that. I think that the time should be cut down to 6 -8 months at most. Understanding that it is very hard to get a job, the government cannot keep spending money on people who are not willing to accept lower wages. That two year plan is like encouraging people to not get a job. I would still make sure to send money for the 6-8 months, but after there is no excuse for it !
Between the choices given, I would rather have a political system with the greatest possible democracy and one that can make major changes quickly. You need checks and balances in order to prevent one government official from having too much power and you need the ability to make changes quickly in the event of a crisis. If the government takes too long to solve an issue, it will get to a point where there is no longer anything that can be done (which is NOT good).
In my government, I would keep politics out of social issues. Social issues sometimes tend to be personal views, and just because a group of people believe in one thing doesn't mean that everyone should have to abide by it. I would also increase the term length for presidents from 4 years each to 5 years each, and the total number of years someone can be president from 10 to 12. Presidents need more time to implicate their ideas into the government, and if they have to spend the end of their first term re-running for president, they aren't going to get it done as well or quickly.
In response to Dalia, I definitely agree about the point you brought up about taxes. The should be I believe households should be taxed based on family income, the more money made, the more taxes. This would be the most efficient way for the government to tax, because there are people out there that get paid millions of dollars, like footballs players, who don't do much, yet there are people that work hard and bust their butts to work for such low amounts of money , and pay more.
1. I believe in a government with the greatest possible political democracy. A government should be mainly controlled by the people and do what is best for the people. With a highly representative government the peoples opinions would be recognized and later translated into policy. Though the people should not have total control over the government they should be able to offer feedback and vote on certain issues. A government mainly controlled by political officials would quickly become extremely corrupt. With political leaders having the knowledge that they control what policies pass and which do not i believe there would be numerous situations in which bills were passed for the sole benefit of political leaders. This type of government would also lead to varying levels of discontent with the governed because they would become essentially unnecessary in the government.
2. I believe a political system that can make major changes quickly would be highly effective because situations presented to the government come in all shapes and forms and can be highly unpredictable. The government needs to be flexible and able to adapt and respond quickly. For example, when our country was faced with terrorist attacks our government made the quick decision to pass certain bills and laws allowing security to be heightened and the privacy of american citizens to be overlooked at times for the sake of our security. If our government had been slow to react to change our security systems would have taken years to modify because they would have not been able to work around the various laws prohibiting their actions. Also, the american people would probably get quickly fed up with a slow moving government.
In my own government i would never create the distinction between political parties. Though it is obvious that people have differing opinions and naturally drift into their own categories, i would never officially state that there are two opposite parties. I would do this because i believe peoples assumptions about parties have too great an influence on their decisions. People often have judgements and opinions on certain parties and when they hear what party a candidate from they sometimes quickly reject them or only vote for them solely because of their party. I believe with no official party separation people would be forced to look into candidates and actually make a decision based on how they feel about the persons motives, character and ambitions rather than their political category.
Yet another design i would implement is slowly weaning out foreign imports. i would also put a ban on the number of chain stores able to be placed in each state. In my opinion, stores such as wall mart and target, though highly convenient, are killing the individuality on each state and crushing town revenue and small business. I would also heavily enforce returning to domestic production to create jobs for people in the united states and cut costs on importation.
If I were to design my own government I would have to go with a political system that gives elected officials considerable latitude to do what they feel is best without having to worry too much about public opinion. The reason I would lean more towards this form of government is because in the greatest possible political democracy, the popular demands are translated into laws and policies. That is not necessarily the greatest idea since not everyone who would vote for a new law or policy I educated to the fullest extend. Also people, in general, seem to look at what would benefit themselves rather than the society as a whole. The elected officials who would be given the right to do what they want to, may be seen by some as trying to form a tyranny. However, if they are being elected by the people of the United States, then the people should have faith in the persons they elected to do what is best for the people of America. Also, it is key that the word officials is plural, showing that there would never be one person in charge of the United States, but that there would still be the three branches of government.
Also, the political system I would design would include that major changes in policy would be very hard to effect and happen. The reason behind this decision is that if the policies in the government were able to be changed quickly, then there would be no continuity in the laws. This would lead to confusion of whether or not the policies are still in play or if they have been changed recently. If it is harder to change a policy than the government would be consistent.
In a government that I would design, I would include two other designs. First, I would have the wealthier and more privileged pay higher taxes. It is truly unfair that the people in this country who have more money have to pay less I taxes than those of the middle class. This is not only a point seen by the middle class, but by some of the wealthier and privileged people too. For example, Warren Buffet, a member of the upper class, has tax loop-holes that allows him to pay less taxes than his secretary. Buffet openly admits that he thinks this is wrong. Therefore, if people in the upper class ,themselves, believe that being able to pay less taxes are wrong, then this should be changed. People should pay taxes based off of their annual income; the more money they make, the more taxes they should pay. Secondly, I believe that the constitution should be re-reviewed once every ten years or so. This should be done since the United States Constitution was written back in 1776, which was over 200 years ago. Many aspects of society have changed greatly since then. With the constitution being reviewed every now and then, there can be a clearer sense of policies based off of the generation one is living in.
1.)Reflecting upon personal opinion, a political system which converts the demands of society into public laws and/or policies is considered more effective in embodying the idea of political democracy. Democracy defines egalitarianism, which describes the equality amongst society. Thus, this equality allows “the people,” of society to participate in governmental policies/and or regulations. Furthermore, the aspirations of “people,” could be fulfilled through a majority vote, which suggests a common desire for the government to fulfill for society. As Blogger94 cited, democracy was constituted in order to promote the ability of society, or “the people.” These people do not reside to fulfill governmental objectives, yet the government resides in order to fulfill the ambitions of “the people.”
2.)The two provided political systems do not fully appease my senses. However, if I had to choose between the two arrangements, I would select to a political system which makes major changes quickly. My reasoning for choosing this political coordination is because it holds the consequential effect to placating society. When policies are not enacted, which are decided by a majority vote, in a swift manner, the government does not compose what society aspires for. Furthermore, by dwelling or procrastinating upon a certain issue for a long period of time, the government finds time to implicate negative aspects to a certain ambitious change. Thus, society becomes displeased with the furthering actions of government.
3a.)In addition to what I previously mentioned, I would comprise my government by complying with society by lowering [or having low] federal taxes. “The people,” are required to pay federal income taxes in order to support the national government. However, my justification for this idea resulted from the fact to which “the people,” have more of a political connection, per say, with the state governments, rather than the national government. The state governments are enabled in order to promote the “will of the people,” in a particular area [state]. State governments serve as a tie between the representatives and “the people.” Furthermore, citizens should provide state governments with more capital, rather less investment to the federal government, due to the direct connection between “the people vs. the state.” Therefore, the state governments could provide people within a distinct locale [state] according to personal wants for society.
3b.)As a result of the executive official, the president, being “the commander in chief,” should have military training or experience in order to structure war through essential precautions. By holding military training/and or experience, the president would understand the motives to which the military system works. Through daily disciplinary actions, the president would be able to comprehend the regimentation of the military. Considering the strategic mind of the military, the president would cognize the idea of being called upon, instantaneously, to give up ones’ life in order to protect “the people,” of society, and honor thy country. Furthermore, the president would grasp the concept of the “greatest honor” is to die for one’s country.
I agree with TrinityS94 that the people know what's best for the world. Elected officials are not ususally members of the middle class. Being that the middle class makes up the majority, these elected officials cannot understand what the majority wants and needs. Also, it is probable that the elected officials would do whatever they could with their power to provide benefits for the upper class, as to benefit themselves. With all the breaks that the upper class gets already, giving them even more isn't fair. Especially while every one else is struggling to surivive.
I think democracies are essential to a success of a nation, for the people in that nation will be happy if they have a say in what is going on. However, if I were able to design my own type of government, I would choose to have a political system that gives elected officials considerable latitude to do what they want to or feel is best without having to worry too much about public opinion. Overall, elected officials would generally be more knowledgeable on a political level when compared to the common people. Most average citizens have certain beliefs, yet do not have enough political intelligence to execute these views in the appropriate manner. Therefore, it is important that the people chose who they want to represent what they want. In turn, the leaders will do what is best in the best way. Although the people might not be happy at the moment, there would probably be more order and triumph in the long run.
In my government, I would also choose to have a political system where major changes in policy are very hard to effect and happen. Change is an important process and cannot be rushed. One needs time to plan an effective new process and slowly test it out before completely changing. If the government had a political system that could make major changes quickly, things would constantly change in government, causing chaos and negative results.
I would also make sure that each citizen is guaranteed basic natural rights. For example, although one would not have a great say in government, he or she would be able to express their views of government freely if it did not cause harm. This could potentially cause political officials to listen to citizen’s opinions, thus becoming more democratic. In addition, I would also try to decrease foreign trade in my government, in order to promote the nation’s resources and increase jobs in the nation. Therefore, the rate of unemployment would be insignificant.
I think democracies are essential to a success of a nation, for the people in that nation will be happy if they have a say in what is going on. However, if I were able to design my own type of government, I would choose to have a political system that gives elected officials considerable latitude to do what they want to or feel is best without having to worry too much about public opinion. Overall, elected officials would generally be more knowledgeable on a political level when compared to the common people. Most average citizens have certain beliefs, yet do not have enough political intelligence to execute these views in the appropriate manner. Therefore, it is important that the people chose who they want to represent what they want. In turn, the leaders will do what is best in the best way. Although the people might not be happy at the moment, there would probably be more order and triumph in the long run.
In my government, I would also choose to have a political system where major changes in policy are very hard to effect and happen. Change is an important process and cannot be rushed. One needs time to plan an effective new process and slowly test it out before completely changing. If the government had a political system that could make major changes quickly, things would constantly change in government, causing chaos and negative results.
I would also make sure that each citizen is guaranteed basic natural rights. For example, although one would not have a great say in government, he or she would be able to express their views of government freely if it did not cause harm. This could potentially cause political officials to listen to citizen’s opinions, thus becoming more democratic. In addition, I would also try to decrease foreign trade in my government, in order to promote the nation’s resources and increase jobs in the nation. Therefore, the rate of unemployment would be insignificant.
I think democracies are essential to a success of a nation, for the people in that nation will be happy if they have a say in what is going on. However, if I were able to design my own type of government, I would choose to have a political system that gives elected officials considerable latitude to do what they want to or feel is best without having to worry too much about public opinion. Overall, elected officials would generally be more knowledgeable on a political level when compared to the common people. Most average citizens have certain beliefs, yet do not have enough political intelligence to execute these views in the appropriate manner. Therefore, it is important that the people chose who they want to represent what they want. In turn, the leaders will do what is best in the best way. Although the people might not be happy at the moment, there would probably be more order and triumph in the long run.
In my government, I would also choose to have a political system where major changes in policy are very hard to effect and happen. Change is an important process and cannot be rushed. One needs time to plan an effective new process and slowly test it out before completely changing. If the government had a political system that could make major changes quickly, things would constantly change in government, causing chaos and negative results.
I would also make sure that each citizen is guaranteed basic natural rights. For example, although one would not have a great say in government, he or she would be able to express their views of government freely if it did not cause harm. This could potentially cause political officials to listen to citizen’s opinions, thus becoming more democratic. In addition, I would also try to decrease foreign trade in my government, in order to promote the nation’s resources and increase jobs in the nation. Therefore, the rate of unemployment would be insignificant.
1. The question is basically asking which government is better, a participatory democracy or a representative democracy. In my opinion I think a representative democracy is better. I agree with the founding fathers decision as allowing the people to control everything would be disastrous. Government decisions would be based on the whims of public opinions, looking more at short term effects rather than long term. In addition, most of the public is not knowledgeable of important government topics and allowing everyone to decide on issues that require a lot of knowledge of government would not end well. A Representative type democracy is much better as representatives who are knowledgeable of issues and the effects of such issues are better to lead the government. In my opinion, I believe the brightest and most intelligent should lead the country. The overall population is limited in their views and would make decisions based on emotions rather than effects on the total population
In response to NESSA7, I agree with the non-distinction between political parties. The two major parties in America, Democrats and Republicans, have grown so far apart within the last few decades.
It is ridiculous how one party often won't even consider a proposal or opinion from a member of the opposing party. The distinction has become so great, that Americans are completely split and against each other. It is more important to focus on the point the individual is making, rather than what political party he/she is affiliated with.
President Obama has tried to compromise with both parties to agree on certain issues, but as shown in his speech on jobs, the Republicans wouldn't budge or consider compromising.
I also find it ridiculous how people are blindly supporting individuals now running for President solely based on their party affiliation - with little regard to their ideas on certain issues or plans of change.
If the party distinction was lessened, I believe citizens would focus more on the arguments the politicians are making, and therefore elect representatives that will provide what the nation needs, no matter what party they are in.
2. Our current government has flaws in it's own. One flaw is that changes take a long time to make. In times of emergency, changes to governmental policies may be absolutely necessary. I believe that the best Type of government is one that can change quickly in times of emergency. It is necessary that we can adapt to sudden changes. For example, if Russia were to send a nuclear bomb our way, taking approximately 12 hours to reach us, it would be vital that we could act suddenly and stop the imminent danger ASAP. With a quick change in major policies, we could better adapt ourselves to any danger presented.
3a. In my government I would build up a strong military. Most of my government spending will be used to protect the nation. With a strong navy, army, air force, and other defenses, I will ensure the safety of my citizens.
3b. In my government, I would tax all citizens as fairly as I could. I think that just because a person is richer than another doesn't neccasirly mean that they have to contribute more money to the government. If a rich citizen were to pay more and contribute more to the government does that mean that they are better citizens or deserve to be treated better? No the same rights and rules apply to all citizens and so should the taxes put on all citizens.
I agree with MikeMatteo in the idea that the overall population should have a say in decisions and if the government follows there ideas, there will be approval by the people. However, as mike states himself, sometimes people dint know what's best and tend to think more selfishly for themselves. Minorities would en lost to the overall population and whims of the general public would make decisions which is rarely good.
1.) If I had the chance to design a government, I would choose to create one that has the greatest possible political democracy; instead of one that gave most of the power to the elected officials. When the United States of America was established, it based its ideals off of the fact that "The People", otherwise known as the citizens of America, would play a significant role in the government; and that pertained to their power to elect officials and to be capable of telling the governing body what they want to be modified, created, or destroyed in society. Therefore, instead of having elected officials do what they feel is best, I think that the people of the nation should be able to speak their opinion about the current situation at hand, in the hopes of being able to sway the government into passing laws or bills that benefit them the most. After all, the said officials who would be making the decisions do not know what would be best and most efficient for the country as a whole.
2.) In this instance, I would favor a political system where major changes in policy are hard to effect and happen. If major changes were fairly easy to make, there would be many modifications made quickly that would not even be heavily considered by the government. But, if policy changes were significantly harder to make, the government would be more capable of discussing and revising the alteration. It is not a given that just because the policy change would be difficult to make means that it would take a very long period of time to complete. Granted, it would take longer than one that could be made more effortlessly; but in the long run if the change is developed more it can be used with no other add-ons coming shortly afterwards, as opposed to the changes that are simpler to make, which can lead to a multitude of "updates".
One design that my government would include would be a rather small time period in which the unemployed receive benefits; but on the other hand more jobs will be available. In recent years the unemployment rate has skyrocketed; but instead of pushing those out of work to pursue other jobs, it seems as if the government is simply increasing unemployment benefits, which in my belief is just making them lazier and as a result will not attempt to find another job. Therefore, in my political system the time period for unemployment benefits would be relatively short, perhaps six months. However, I would also create more job opportunities, including social work as well as others, so the unemployed would have a good chance of finding work again.
Another design that would be included in my political system would be a "fair tax" policy. In today's society, the middle class seems to be unfairly getting the highest amount of tax dues, while the upper class makes more money than the middle class yet pays less in taxes than they do. In my government, the taxes due would be proportional to the salary earned; that is, the more money you make, the more tax money you owe. It is only sensible to do so, in order to ease the pressure on the middle class and to equalize the burden that all the classes must carry.
In response to vmazzella9, i agree the immagration laws do need to be more strict. Especially after 9/11. We should try to be more careful in who we let into this country. The United States is very easy to get into and the security is not that great. Although homeland security was created, there needs to be more done to perfect it. Especially since there are people sneaking into the borders of the united states. The policies do need to be altered to benefit the citizens of the United States.
I agree with Jonathanlamonte on the basis of school funding and prices. In today's society, many colleges have a tuition that exceeds $40,000 a year; and with the condition of the economy a large amount of families are finding it hard to pay for such expenses (without taking out student loans, which in the long run will just increase debt). With these facts established, numerous brilliant-minded students are having to decline going to the academic school of their dreams simply because they couldn't afford it. Therefore, I believe that it is the government's job to begin to help with situations like these. Whether it means creating more scholarships, grants, or awarding more financial aid, the government should get involved and ease the pain of the kids whose dreams are shattered because of money issues. And think of it in these terms: if students are incapable of receiving a top-notch education, they will not be as prepared for their jobs, and thus the future of the country can be at risk of becoming weaker than it was in earlier generations.
1. I believe in a government with the greatest possible political democracy. A government should be mainly controlled by the people and do what is best for the people. With a highly representative government the peoples opinions would be recognized and later translated into policy. Though the people should not have total control over the government they should be able to offer feedback and vote on certain issues. A government mainly controlled by political officials would quickly become extremely corrupt. With political leaders having the knowledge that they control what policies pass and which do not i believe there would be numerous situations in which bills were passed for the sole benefit of political leaders. This type of government would also lead to varying levels of discontent with the governed because they would become essentially unnecessary in the government.
2. I believe a political system that can make major changes quickly would be highly effective because situations presented to the government come in all shapes and forms and can be highly unpredictable. The government needs to be flexible and able to adapt and respond quickly. For example, when our country was faced with terrorist attacks our government made the quick decision to pass certain bills and laws allowing security to be heightened and the privacy of american citizens to be overlooked at times for the sake of our security. If our government had been slow to react to change our security systems would have taken years to modify because they would have not been able to work around the various laws prohibiting their actions. Also, the american people would probably get quickly fed up with a slow moving government.
In my own government i would never create the distinction between political parties. Though it is obvious that people have differing opinions and naturally drift into their own categories, i would never officially state that there are two opposite parties. I would do this because i believe peoples assumptions about parties have too great an influence on their decisions. People often have judgements and opinions on certain parties and when they hear what party a candidate from they sometimes quickly reject them or only vote for them solely because of their party. I believe with no official party separation people would be forced to look into candidates and actually make a decision based on how they feel about the persons motives, character and ambitions rather than their political category.
Yet another design i would implement is slowly weaning out foreign imports. i would also put a ban on the number of chain stores able to be placed in each state. In my opinion, stores such as wall mart and target, though highly convenient, are killing the individuality on each state and crushing town revenue and small business. I would also heavily enforce returning to domestic production to create jobs for people in the united states and cut costs on importation.
I agree with blogger94 in stating that social issues be kept out of politics. any item that is not stated or dealt with in the constitution should not be of political concern, though it may be a major issue for society, it is something for people to sort out on their own. excess social issues leaves less time for the government to deal with more important pending issues
I believe in a political system with the greatest possible political democracy-that is, one that translates popular demands into laws and policies as effectively as possible. America was made so that we the people actually mattered. If our opinions didn't matter it would seem as though we aren't even free. We should all make an informed decision together based on the need of the majority. Elected officials can't not speak for each individual. Also sometimes elected officials can take advantage of their powers and disregard what the people want.
I believe in a political system that can make major changes quickly only because as times goes on peoples need will change. Other nations affect the United States as well. If terrorists attacked America changes need to be made. If it took a long time to make one change then the United States would not improve or grow as a strong nation. Being able to adapt and adjust is vital.
In my government, I would focus more on helping the middle class and the poor people. I understand that rich people worked hard for their money but after a while they tend to take advantage and take granted of all the money they have. Middle class and the lower class need attention and need help from the government. Finding a place to live and finding food is hard enough. And then having to maintain education with a possibility of not having enough money for college or to come out of school in debt. People say that poor people sometimes deserved what they get because some didn't work hard in school and sometimes it's not always their fault. People say that the middle class and lower class will struggle but still be okay but it's not as easy as it looks unless you experienced and sometimes rich people don't understand that some do but most don't.
In my government, I would make college less expensive. It's hard enough with the pressure to do good in school and then sometimes to not have enough money for SAT prep class and then on top of that to do very good on the SAT and then to have to pick a college you may not even have enough money for. And then when you get out of college you are in debt because of all your student loans and then by the time you pay them off your own kids are in school. It's just too much money needed in this society. It's all about money. We all start to have money. America needs to learn to adjust their money values. For example, the expenses of dorming and notebooks in college.
I agree with Genna Weiser on several accounts. First of all, I agree that elected officials holding political power is more beneficial to the government primarily because a number of citizens who would be otherwise allowed to vote for specific laws and policies may not be properly educated or informed in a way that they could make the most practical decision. I also agree with the idea of ensuring that “the word ‘officials’ is plural”. This ensures that absolute power is not in the hand of one person but rather that power is distributed to several intelligent individuals who, together, come together in making important decisions. I also agree with Genna Weiser in her opinion of policies being harder to enact in order to keep government more consistent and in her opinion that the wealthy should be taxed more. Then only matter with which I disagree with her is that the Constitution should be “reviewed” every ten years. The Constitution is often viewed as the backbone of policies today and if often considered to be the ultimate authority on legal matters. If it were to be reviewed on a regular basis this would be comparable to editing the entire principles of the government itself.
My government would have a political system with the greatest possible political democracy. A political system that gives elected officials the power to do what they feel is best means that the people in the nation would have no political representatives. Main reason in having a elected officials are to have them represent the people, not ignore the public. Even though the officials have superior knowledge in politics and history of the nation, it is best that the government works for the people. Educated people pay attention to politics and keep up with what is going on in the world and people who do not care for what goes on in the country will ignore the government. Therefore even in the nation where popular demands are translated into the laws, they will not be bad as some people might think it would be. There still needs to be proper propositions and proposals of reasonable bills. It is also better in sense that all the classes, upper class, middle class, and the lower class can also participate in the government and have a voice in politics. All classes experience different life styles and others cannot best represent their circumstances and environment, but themselves.
When making changes in the political system, I would also make the major changes quickly rather than having a very hard process to make any changes in the political system. Humans evolved and we are still moving forward such as technologies and knowledge. Lot of things has changed from the last thousands of years of human existence. When there are changes in circumstances and environment could not have the same laws because the demands of the people are different. Politics listens to the people in the country and make changes according to their requests. When the political system is very hard to make major changes, it will not fulfill the peoples’ needs and wants. In economy like now, some people cannot afford to wait for another 10 years to get a bill across to help the needy.
In my design of the government, the government should stop the businesses from growing when they become too aggressive. President Teddy Roosevelt took on the matter of monopoly during his time in the office. President Roosevelt tried to stop monopoly that bought out all the smaller businesses and let the competition strive. Also, the government should stop the loopholes that the business owners are going through to not pay taxes. Businesses should not only worry about making a profit, but also think about giving back to the people by making competition and paying the right amount of taxes to lessen the burden on the middle class. The government should view the businesses and make sure that the businesses in the nation thrive.
Another design will be to extend the president’s years in office from four years to six years. In my opinion I think it gives them more time to work hard on the nations matters and not have to worry about the re-election until 5 years after in office. This would mean the maximum years in the office will be extended to 15 years instead of 10 years. Extension will allow the president to complete the tasks that he started and not pass it down to the next president in the office. Some might say that the years in the office are too long, but South Korea elects the president every 6 years. South Korea was not a democratic country until around 1950s or 1960s. There were some things here and there that created some problems because they were newly introduced to this type of government. But in a country like United States where the nation is already settled in as a democratic country, I believe there will not be any problem in extending the years in office.
I would rather have a political system that could make major changes quickly. As we can see with today's government, Obama and the democrats didn't do very well to say the least about the reforms that were "promised" to us by Obama. If we had a political system that could make changes quickly, decisions on bills involving healthcare and economic improvements could be made concisely without the debates in which Americans must watch take place. I would also make my government consist of only one party, but a party that is run by the people and not by a single elite. This would prevent tension between issues and ideas. The last design i would add would have an emphasis on the Supreme Court, since I find that area is lacking nowadays
i agree with Joe Manzi. A major problem within our government is the incapability to make swift decisions. In times of emergency, it takes our government to long to reach a verdict. It is important for the government to be able to make intelligent yet quick decision when the time comes. The government should not have to be dependent on other sections within the government, to put laws, acts, etc. into effect. When crisis strikes, it is important for the government to be able to take charge. The government needs to have the capability to put quick changes into effect, that have the country's safety and best interests in mind.
If i was given the chance to design a government, i would deffinetly create a political system with the greatest possible democracy. The main role of the government is to represent the will of the people, not to enact laws according to the desires of elected officials. According to our Constitution, we have the natural rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. I believe that in order for the government to protect these rights, the government must be able to provide the people with what they want. In some circumstances, if elected officials were given the power to make decisions without considering the desires of the public, unrest among American citizens would increase, due to the lack of communication between the people and the government.
A political system in which major changes can be made efficiently and quickly would be the ideal route. A government must be able to cooperate with the constantly changing society by enacting laws and policies which correspond with sudden uprising issues. Furthermore, in a case of emergency, quick decisions must be made. If a major issue is left unresolved for a period of time, it may enable the problem to grow worse.
In addition to these governmental policies, i would also enact a foreign policy in which America would seize involvement in foreign nations. If one looks back in history, you will see that during times of isolation, America was able to concentrate more on domestic issues, such as repairing the economy. Rather than sending money and troops overseas in order to aid other countries, we need to concentrate on repairing the problems of our own government.
Furthermore, i believe a policy in which disallows the president and the members of the congress to be from opposing parties. Todays government requires a system of checks and balances. The president and Congress require each others approval to enact a policy or law. If they are from opposing parties, they will have differing views on national issues and nothing will get resolved because they will not be able to reach ann agreement. If they are from the same party, policies will be easily formed.
In response to jonathanlamonte, i agree that a political system with the greatest possible political democracy is better. However, i have to dissagree with his opinion that a political system where changes and decisions are made quickly is the best. As i mentioned before, rapid changes can cause chaos and uprising and can actually cause mor eharm than good in some cases.
I agree with his new form of government in how it regulates spending so as to eliminate debt and to put money to better use. Also, his idea of using Facebook and Twitter to get the government more involved with the opinions of the people is a great idea and i think it should actually be implemented into reality. This way, government officials will always know what the majority of people want and it will always be updated so that they can change things according to the times. Also, people tend to outpour their true feelings onto the internet for some reason so what the people will say is oging to be real and applicable to many.
I believe in a political system that gives political officials considerable latitude to do what they feel is right without have to worry about the people much. I also believe policies should be able to be put into place rather quickly. I feel that in a poor economic state, these two provisions to government would be beneficial. The unemployment line is getting longer everyday, but not everyday is there a new way to prevent this. It takes weeks, even months for a new policy to be put into effect. This is because these elected officials do not have as much power as previously assumed. They have to make sure it is what the people want. Also, disagreements between parties make it almost impossible to pass bills quickly. Obama stressed in his previous address to congress that they should pass his bill as soon as possible. He knows that since there is about fourteen months until reelection, most people from the opposite parties want to oppose him. They do not want him to have power to be reelected. If elected officials, and the president especially, had the power we instilled in them to make decisions and put them into motion as quickly as possible, we might be able to solve problems quicker. The long process that is gone through to pass a bill, or for even the president to make a decision is ridiculous. It is almost like the president is unaccountable, because he does not have enough power to pass bills quickly and efficiently.
I believe a political system that gives elected officials considerable latitude would work better than leaving every decision to the popular demand. Leaving every law and policies up to popular demand will not work out effectively even if it is carried out effectively. The population can be easily influenced and can lead to poor decision making. During dire situations, the population may decide upon a law or policy that work for a short time, but can fail in the long run because not everyone (of the general public) thinks that much about politics or have the interest to think about the results and consequences. The people are not always focused, determined, or know much about politics, which makes it better to have officials to think over serious laws, policies, decisions, and repercussions. Having elected officials to do what they are suppose to do will benefit better. However, I do not feel that the elected officials should have all the power, but the power to make throughout decisions that will help the public and nation. A political system that can make major changes in policy quickly can benefit society and the people greatly. Being able to change or make policies quickly can solve problems that would generally take years only a few months. By dragging out decisions, it would not only anger the public, but would waste the time as well, while new issues can be discussed and dealt with. In my government, I would make sure everyone has their natural rights and basic freedoms. In addition, I would want my government to build up a strong defense in order to be able to protect the people's rights and freedoms. Therefore, a strong and organized army, navy, and airforce is essential. Lastly, I would want the government to focus on itself before involving or stay involve in our nation's problems, so our own economical and political problems can be solved faster.
-If I were to design my own government, I would rather have a political system with the greatest possible political democracy. It wouldn't be fair if elected officials made decisions based on their ideas and opinions, rather than those of the public. The first three words of the constitution are "We the people," and it means that the power of the government comes from the people. Although elected officials may be more educated in what's going on politically throughout our nation, this is no excuse to ignore the ideas, views, and opinions of the public. We all live in America and therefore we should all be able to voice our thoughts on certain situations since we will all be affected by the outcome. Adding to that, elected officials can be extremely wealthy and sometimes use their money to get what they want. Knowing that they have complete control over the people of America, these political leaders would easily be able to create policies and enact laws for their benefit and completely disregard the public opinion. Corruption would be rampant in America if we had a political system that gave elected officials considerable latitude to do what they want to or feel is best without having to worry too much about public opinion. The American government should represent all of the American people, not just those who can win an election.
-I would rather have a political system that can make major changes quickly. The views of the American people are constantly changing. This means that the government needs to keep up with the rapidly fluctuating ideas and opinions. Making major changes quickly is most efficient, will satisfy the nation as a whole, and will reduce rebelling citizens. If the government takes too long to pass a law or enact a policy, a small problem can turn into a devastating crisis. Certain situations require fast decisions to protect Americans and the security of our nation.
-One design I would add into my government would be the reduction of receiving governmental aid financially such as being put on welfare or getting food stamps. There are many people who take advantage of this and it's not fair to those who actually need it. Although it may be difficult to get a job in our economy today, people still need to try even if it means taking a job of a lower rank than before. It's not fair that some people are able to live off money and benefits the government supplies them just because they can fill out an application. I would create the process of receiving these governmental aids much more intense and specified, so that not just anyone can receive these offers. It is not fair for those who work hard to feed their family to have to pay taxes to support people who sit back and feed on governmental aid. Those who truly need to be on welfare and receive food stamps or free health care should be able to do so with the help of the government. Those who are unemployed without any interest of finding a new job should not be supported by the government.
-Another design I would add into my government would be to reduce the tuition of colleges. This is because certain colleges can be extremely pricy, and genius students may have to turn down a college because they cannot afford it. An extremely smart student who works hard should be rewarded with their college of their dreams (that is if they are accepted). A high school graduate should go to a college based on their grades, scores, and extracurricular involvement rather than their family's income. College graduates spend most of their lifetime paying back loans which is unfortunate.
In response to mattsmss, I agree with his ideas about government. I do not believe that politics should involve social issues such as gay marriage. Personal issues should not be brought up in politics just because of one person's view not agreeing with another's. Politics should just deal with politics and not bring in everyone's social issues. The politicians have enough problems with just dealing with the nation's economical and political problems, therefore, doesn't need any more problems piling up.
1) Given the chance to design a government, I would rather have a system that allows the greatest possible political democracy. In other words, a democracy that translates popular demands into laws and policies as effectively as possible. Rather than all the major decisions being decided by a few top leaders, the demands of the general population are all accounted for and every citizen gets a say. I believe that a system with the greatest possible democracy will work best because in such a large population, there are bound to be different opinions and the elected officials should address them all, rather than make all the decisions themselves.
2) I would choose a political system where major changes in policy are hard to effect. In this system, people have representatives who serve their needs and help pass their demands into law. However, if every decision is left for the people to decide, it may lead to bad decisions. Aristotle defined a democracy as "the rule of many" and his idea was a direct democracy where everyone made the decision. However, this type of democracy would only work with a small population. In a large country like the United States, this would never work because there are way too many people to be accounted for. To prevent unwise decisions, representatives of the people, not the people themselves, should make the decisions, but base it on the needs of the people.
In addition to these aspects of government, I would have more money go to the military. The military is really the most important thing ensuring our protection and well being. Without a strong military, the United States would not be as strong and would be prone to more attacks by terrorists and other enemies. I believe more money should go to our defenses so that we can better protect our liberties. Another aspect of my government includes providing financial help to small businesses so that there would be more people making money, therefore more people paying taxes. Also I would want a monitor on large corporations so that there would be no monopolies and everyone would have a chance to make money.
I believe that a political system with the greatest possible democracy is the best for the people. Democracy was originally created in order to please the population of its citizens. If we were to have a government where elected officials had a considerable latitude to do what they want, we would end up with a government full of officials wanting to create a better society for the people who elected them and only them.
Having this political democracy helps to translate the ideas of the majority into bills and laws. This type of government would be extremely effective and would be able to please the most people.
I believe that a government who can make quick and swift decisions over small issues while still debating and fighting over the big issues can be effective. By allowing the small ideas such as environmental laws, or relief for natural disasters to be moved faster, more lives as well as homes and families can be saved.
I would also have to leave the seperation of church and state as far as possible. For laws like gay marriage and gay rights, that take forever to get passed through congress even thuogh theres supposed to be a seperation between both, there needs to be an unbiased section who can give the civil liberties to minorities such as these. By having this seperation we can leave social viewsout of congress and stick with the politics.
I believe that a government in which elected officials are given more power to do what they feel is in the best interest of the people is the better form of government. Not everyone in the general public is informed on all topics that the government works with, such as current events or foreign affairs. If that is the case, how would they be able to know how to vote on matters they have little knowledge about. Also, it is human nature for people to act based on their passions and refuse to look at both sides of the story. It is the job of the officials to be aware of the situation and the multiple angles it can be taken viewed from. Being worried about public opinion can skew an official's decision on an issue so that instead of doing what is right, they are doing what would garner them more votes. Of course, the officials can't have total control. There must be limitations since we do not want tyrants in government.
I think a political system in which major changes take a long time to process. If processes were quick, then our government would be constantly changing year to year. By making it slow, the political system is able to weed out any major changes that are in the end, not important to the success of our country. Also, the slowness of the political system would give officials time to think about the proposition and consider all sides.
First, I would forbid the use of lobbying by special interests group in my government. I do not think that just because an official's campaign is paid for by a special interest group, the official should have all policies he puts forth in favor of that group. Special interests are only representing a portion of the people not everyone. I think officials should make decisions based on what they think of the policy, not the special interests. Another thing I would add would be the use of a universal health care system, such as the ones practiced in Europe. Health care in the United States is ridiculous to the point where people are refused necessary treatment because they cannot afford to pay the bill. Though it would create higher taxes, at least everyone is able to have proper medical attention and the system seems to work in other countries. The movie "Sicko" highlights this whole issue. For example, a woman who was insured was refused cancer treatment because the tumor was not fatal. She passed away right after the movie completed filming.
If I were to design my own form of government, I would prefer a political system in which representatives take into consideration all views on a specific topic or debate. The representative should use his or her expertise to make an educated decision, but when choosing which side to agree with, he or she should represent the other party’s views on a different subject matter (which he or she may support) as a form of compensation. This will allow ample opportunities for all to be represented without a majority rule over the minority.
In a perfect world, I believe it is important that our government spends enough time reviewing policy changes before placing them into effect without the policy debate being dragged out for too long. Because it is difficult for government to make changes at a moderate speed, I believe policy changes should be a careful process, and if necessary, a long one. Especially during hard economic times, one must put time and effort into perfecting his or her policy not only to solve the current issue(s) at hand but to prevent such from reoccurring. America needs a steadfast solution that would last for the years to come, not just a quick solution.
My government would continue to give a percentage of money to the rivaling nations to keep them at bay. Any rash decisions to end such donations may anger these nations further and the relationship between them and the United States may worsen. This is a way of keeping the enemies of the United States at arms length. Dependence of foreign oil would follow the same policy. However, we would use a percent of the money sent to foreign countries to not produce our own oil but to find alternative fuel that would ultimately end dependence and develop new jobs for the unemployed. It would wean America off foreign products without haste which could cause issues.
The United States can create specialized education programs which will allow academically gifted students to attend to these private colleges with minimal or no tuition. Such programs would accept a small population of students who show promise in leading our country as government officials, doctors, etc. Selection would be based solely on grades and the income of the family, giving those living in poverty to attend college with little or no debt.
I agree with Ananda over the case with illegal immigrants. Many do not want to become citizens to avoid paying taxes, so to give them funding is an insult to those who came to this country (especially those who came from and still live in poverty) legally. I understand how she feels in that it is not necessary to give funding to rivaling nations, but as I wrote earlier, the practice (which should not have been started in the first place) must continue (although I find cutting the amount we give appropriate). If such nations dislike America already, how would they feel if America stopped giving them money all at once? That would make the situation worse than it already is.
vmazella9 is completley right in regards to her remarks about stricter immigration regulations. I agree that it's becoming a problem. There has been a boost in illegal immigration over the past couple of years. Many people seem to think there is no harm. But in this new age of modern warfare, many people are out to hurt us and allowing whoever to come in here is a bad move and is very dangerous. Also, recently the goveernment said they would give scholarship money to those illegally living in this country while the hard working famalies struggle to get by. And as I'm applying to colleges and looking for work i'm finding more jobs are becoming unavaibale. This could be due to our economy OR the fact that many jobs are being taken by illegals. This is a MAJOR problem facing our country.
I definitely agree with alecimen’s point of view. Democracy is all about what the people want and I feel like the elected officials would do what’s best for themselves, and not what’s best in the interest of the people. Not only that but I definitely agree with alecimen’s point that the church and state should be handled in two separate categories. The church has nothing to do with politics. “Issues” like gay marriage especially have nothing to do with politics and is just a waste of time. The church is a group of believers with their own rules and doctrines it’s not up to the state to make marriage for gay people legal. If they want to get married then they should make up their own church and not try to force the will of a single group by placing their ideals into society by going to congress.
I also agree with Dalia's views on college tuitions. It is very hard to get a job even after one graduates from a college in this economy. Let alone high school graduates. More funding from the government would lower the public colleges and the private colleges more affordable. Years ago, college was not something necessary and not something that everyone could attend. But nowadays everyone goes to college and the tuitions are getting higher and higher. Some people decide to go to public schools even though they could go to a great private school if it wasn't for the monetary problems.
To suggest something new, eliminating the lax loop holes and fund for colleges in United States with that money would be much better. Rich people always say noblesse oblige and looks like they are giving back in honorable behavior, but infact they give back only a little fraction of what they earn.
I disagree with Katrine when it comes to her opinion that the President and COngress should have to all belong to the same political party. The reason that there are different political parties is because everyone has there own point of view. If there are different parties in office and making decisions, then more people's voices can be heard. If there are different political parties, then there will be checks and balances. If one political party has all the say in the government, millions of people won't even get the chance to get what they want.
Although it can be frustrating that government is a slow process, it would be unrealistic for it to be the opposite. If a government takes it's time to pick out flaws and see what is to be passed or not, drastic changes would be prevented that could have hurt the country
If I had the change to design my own government, I would have a political system with the greatest possible political democracy, over one that gives elected officials power over citizens. Ordinary citizens should be given power over representatives since they are the ones who actually live ordinary lives. Elected officials are usually very rich and do not fully understand how people of the middle and lower class live, and would most likely make decisions based on the opinions of the rich.
I would want a political system that can make major changes quickly because if something needs to get done, it should get done right away. It will satisfy the people and everyone will realize that the government will help them immediately.
In my government, I would tax the rich more instead of the middle class. The current unemployment rate is 9.1% and 1 in 6 people are in poverty. The number of people who are unemployed and are in poverty keeps increasing day by day so. On the other hand, there is a small percentage of the extremely wealthy in the country and they make tens of millions of dollars. They spend money like it’s nothing and go out and spend millions of dollars on jewelry, cars, clothes, etc. Instead, if they were taxed a little more, the extra money can be used to open up more jobs and help those in poverty.
I would also include health care for all citizens in my government. The extra money gained from the rich should be used for this. There are currently about 50 million Americans who are uninsured. There are 44,800 deaths annually linked to uninsurance. I believe everyone should be able to live healthily without worrying about getting sick and paying for medications.
I agree with Katrine in that the government should spend money on domestic issues rather than spending money on other countries. Americans are suffering a lot also so why not help out your own country? The money saved should be used on the poor and unemployed, which will then help improve our economy. However, I do not agree that a policy should be made that disallows the president and the members of the Congress to be from opposing parties. Everyone is different and has different views on everything. The point of a democracy is to allow everyone to express their beliefs and opinions. It is better to have a myriad of opinions rather than the same exact views as everyone else.
A political system with the greatest possible political democracy has been shown to work in the past. However, i believe a truly successful government needs a system that gives officials the power to do what they deem fit. People don't know what is good for them or their country. They think they know but they don't. the elected officials are elected becasue the people want them to do the right thing. They can't do the right thing if they are binded by the popular demand. The only true way to get something done right, is to do it themselves. They need to do things for the better of the country and not for the love of the people.
A political system that has major changes gappening quickly is much better. If i created a government changes would need to be able to happen in an instant. if changes take too long, they can end up doing nothing when they happen. For example, if the country needs money, we can't wait forever for congress to deliberate on a plan. They need to make a change to the debt and within a few days of realizing a change is made.
Also my government wouldn't have term limits on any officials. if the people like them, they should be abble to stay. they should definitely still be elections but there shouldn't be a limit on how many times a person can be president or any other official. Finally another design my government would have is a fair system of taxes. Everyone should pay the same amount of taxes. Rich people shouldn't have to pay more just because they have more. They should still pay the same as everyone else. no one should have to pay more taxes or less than everyone else it isn't fair.
In my government, I would definitely rather have a political system that would give elected officials considerable latitude to do what they want to or feel is best without having to worry too much about public opinion. The reason being that in society there will be a time in which the people would not be able to have a clear answer to a problem therefore a representative should be able to make the answer. Also, if the people of the government do not take the time to read such laws that are being put into affect then a law might be passed that is not constitutional and a representative would be able to take the time and read it.
In addition, I rather have a political system where major changed in policy are very hard to effect and happen. If the political system was able to make changes quickly then there would be a lack of representation from both sides of an argument and not everyone would be correctly represented. Also, no one party should be able to control government therefore this political system would eliminate that factor.
Lastly, my government would not be a part of American life as much as it is currently today. The purpose of government is to protect its people and secure their rights of liberty. My government would not have a role in controlling the country's economic policy but rather be more concerned with whether or not its people are safe.
I agree with what Jo-Ann Wong said. I think people are always looking out for their own interest and therefore do not really consider what the other side thinks. I also agree that major changes would not be a good idea due to the country constantly changing year after year and disorder would arise out of that situation. However, I do disagree with what she said about lobbying because lobbying could be a good thing based on who is doing it and for what cause. Lobbying itself isn't a bad thing but for the wrong cause is.
1)I believe that a government with the greatest possible political democracy is the best type of government a country can have. The founding fathers wanted the people to play a role within government, and wanted them to have their opinion heard with in government. If the people do not have a say with in their government then the government would make decisions that would benefit the them the most. The people need to get involved and play a part in order to make their views available for discussion and debate.
2) I would think a political system that could make major changes quickly would be most effective in certain situations. They will get results to the public faster and make them happy. They would be able to fix certain issues faster. The longer an issue drags on the more the people see the government as not doing their job. As nothing gets done the people would get restless and try to elect other officials in order to resolve certain issues.
One significant design i would add to my government would be to keep economy separate from the the regular congress men. I believe that much would get done if their was a different committee devoted to economy an commerce issues. They would have much less to worry about, and could focus on the economy. these people would have much knowledge on the issues at hand and would be able to find the best solution for the problem. i think this would be more effective then the debates that are happening in congress.
My second design would be that the amount of time that you can be on unemployment would be much shorter. I do not think that extending the time in which you are out of work and paid will solve any problems. I think its encouraging laziness. if the unemployment was shorter you would feel more rushed to find a job. That is not necessarily a bad thing, you would have more drive and willingness to find a job.
A Constitution is by no means a distrust of popular government. It is simply the protection of the rights of the people. Given the power to create my own government I would allow the government to make decisions and do what it sees fit regardless of public opinion. Also I would allow my government to make changes rapidly to fit the needs of the nation and the economy. Furthermore, government should be pure capitalism. People should be allowed to use the free market to their advantage and by no means should the government control the economy or businesses. On top of that, the government should have no role besides the protection of the people. There should be no social programs, and no government interference with anything besides protection and foreign affairs. This by far would be the best government system.
If I had a chance to design a government, I would give the people a more democratic participation than is given today. A political system with the greatest influence of democracy can help the nation act unanimously. The democracy does not necessarily have to be a complete direct democracy, but the people would have the right to vote on social and economic issues, apart from elections. In fact, the vote of the people would have a greater influence in elections. The electoral college would still be significant, but the voice of the people would be more evident.
Politicians and government officials are not mandated to carry out all popular demands and ratify them as laws and policies. However, popular demands should be recognized and evaluated. It is true that the common people do not have the equal federal knowledge as that of politicians and government workers. Yet, if a demand is prevalent and eminent, there must be a reason. Politicians should not ignore major demands and simply act upon their own opinion and beliefs. Elected officials should not have the utmost leniency to act on their instinct. Public opinion should be highly regarded. As representatives, senators, and federal officials, the workers of the government should have the people, their major conflicts, and their opinions as their priority.
In my government, I would give much attention to the economy. Specifically, small businesses would receive aid if necessary. I would not devote almost all federal aid and bailout money to colossal banks and companies. Big businesses will get support as well if necessary, but it is the small, local,domestic businesses that the middle class invests their everyday money in. Businesses such as bakeries, retail stores and restaurants are a key factor to keep the economy in a healthy state. They keep money in circulation, while helping other businesses such as themselves.
In Canada, there can be two or three taxes, depending upon the region. The taxes are costly, but as a result the people have free health care. My government would raise taxes, but at a slow pace to not overwhelm people. Moreover, since the government would act as an exceptionally political democracy, people would be allowed to give in their inputs to the government before any law or bill would go into effect. The people would be allowed to vote on the issue of raising taxes, but their votes would not have to be the prime factor in making a decision. The government can still use its knowledge to come to a final conclusion, but with also learning the opinions of the people.
A political system that can alter major changes quickly is not always the best thing. America today is considering several major changes, but it is an intricate and long process to even pass one change. If it would be easy, there would be too many alterations in short periods of time. Therefore, it is best to have a political system where major changes are hard to put into effect. A major change should be thought out and planned to work in all types of situations. The government would need time to think of the pros and cons a major change would cause. Although the people might want swift, rapid changes if they are in demand, those changes may not be what is best for the people of the country as a whole. People come from countless backgrounds and economic conditions. A swift major change can help someone, or make someone else go bankrupt. As a result, major changes need heavy pondering and planning before they become official.
I agree with what Blogger94 said. Their should be a democracy that people vote on, however, the government that is elected should make decisions. The government should not have complete control over the laws, in fact, they should not control anything except protection and foreign affairs.
I am in full agreement that an effective political system should be able to make quick decisions. This is the only way that government can be helpful.
Furthermore, I could not agree more that government should stay out of social affairs! Governments should only provide MINOR fiscal politics and mostly protection and foreign affairs. Governments that get too involved in fiscal politics and waste their time with social politics are not successful.
While I would like to see a political system with as much political democracy as possible, I dont think something like that could ever work efficientley, especially in a country this massive. On paper, it would seem logical that a popular vote for issues be held quickley and frequentley. However, in practice, I feel it just would not work. Many voters in this country can be misled by confusing campaign accusations or false information. I do not feel it is best to allow that much power to be given to the everyday person when they may or may not have a full understanding of the topic. I would feel more comfortable with a select few officials elected to represent our needs. A representative getting information from political meetings and assemblies would be much more informed then the averege American gathering what they can understand from bits they catch on politically spun newscasts. A more informed group of officials should make decicions on what they feel is best, since they would be much more informed then the common citizen.
I feel for any government to be sucessful, it is nececarry to have the ability to make decicions quickley and effectiveley. With a speedy lawmaking process it is easy to keep up with an ever evolving society. New circumstances and issues can literally happen overnight. A government should be able to react to a situation as fast as they can occur.
In my society, I would also include free healthcare. I feel there is nothing more importnt then public health. A country where people cannot afford to receive life saving treatment because they cannot afford it is simply inhumane. Everyone has the right to live a healthy life.
Furthurmore, i would like to see a government that considers various social issues mentioned in previous posts. I feel social subjects like abortion and gay marrage should be left alone by the government. A government is not here to tell us what choices to make in life. It should not be a privlidge to be allowed to marry who you are in love with, it should be a right. It should not be a government decicion to force you to keep a child when you know you cannot provide it with everything that it deserves. These issues are private and personal, and cannot be generalized in governmental policy.
1.) Hands down, my response would be to create a government which has a political system with the greatest possible democracy. A democracy is created to represent the direct views of the people, and that is something that our country has steered away from, rather choosing a person to represent a certain amount of people. In my government, I would want to hear the views and opinions of all the people, and act on that majority, rather than having my people divided into two major political factions and having to choose one of two. With the greatest possible democracy, people are able to think in shades of grey, not just in either black or white. And so, government officials can act on a variety of interests, not just having to go with one issue because it's mostly tied to another. I believe in well-roundedness and having options- which is what my government would be all about. Having to hear from several sides, rather than just one or the other.
2.) I believe that over time, policies need to be continually revised, as some may be outdated. Every society, every generation, even every decade has a new issue to deal with. And the biggest problem with this is that people tend to stick with tradition. Traditional policies should be kept - if the people are in accord, of course- but in my opinion, a political system that can make major changes quickly is preferable. Even over the ages, the views of a people change, which is why policies should be able to adapt to the times. The Constitution is a traditional obstacle. With the views of the people becoming looser, such an orthodox system needs to be updated.
Two other designs that I would include in my government…
One major concern is the need for people to be educated, so the first design to my government would be to fund for my country's education, that way the future of the country is ensured in the hands of intellectuals. Education is slacking, and so are funds, which will procreate a lag in the number of educated people. Increasing educational opportunities beyond the wealthiest is something vital to the future of the nation. Giving everyone a chance to do their best and prove their best, and secure the wealth and vitality of this great nation for generations to come.
Another design for my government would be to increase employment opportunities. For those who do not have an interest to invest in further education, or simply prefer to work rather than study, I would want to ensure jobs for them. I'd fund more employment options through the taking away of programs such as welfare.. But first, ensure everyone a job. And a reasonable salary for them to live by. My main goal through this design would be to decrease, if not completely eliminate poverty; and end the abuse of the welfare system.
I agree with the The Blogger.The authentic definition of democracy is "the rule of the people." Politicians and federal officials should not assume complete power when it comes to making decisions because as The Blogger stated, a tyranny could emerge. A democracy is completely on the other side of the spectrum. Also, in a democracy, natural rights should always be protected and guaranteed. I agree with The Blogger in terms of the possession of natural rights. If they would be taken away, America would not be considered the greatest democracy. In addition, a strong and organized military is essential to the safety and world power of the nation
I agree with the unarmed truth, college is way to expensive. The price to go to a know respectable college can be way to expensive, and will put a lot of pressure on students. the only issue i have on this is how are you going to decrease the price of public and even private colleges. As a person tries to obtain a higher education the price of college just gets higher. this makes it hard for people to go to college without coming out of it with large amounts of debt.
I agree with R_Alice's option to give much attention the economical situation, by aiding small businesses. The best idea is to flow money into the middle class, who both can work and consume just as much. Keeping money in circulation is the best approach to have money flowing in and out of the hands of those consumers.
I agree with JMLUCIANO17 in the ideology that the president should have military training or experience in order to be able to conduct affairs through war. I also agree that the president would grasp that "the greatest honor" is to die for one's country. A president should not be involved in war if he has no background history or no experience in what he is doing. Thus, the military will not be endorsed but rather debilitated by erroneous actions. In order for someone to conduct a proper military conduction, he or she must familiarize themselves with the procedure.
I would rather have a system of government in which elected officials would have leeway to do what they feel is best for the people, without worrying too much about public opinion. Since public opinion is usually biased and self centered and the people can't make decisions which would benefit the majority, the elected official are supposed to appeal towards the people's general welfare. By doing this the public opinion would infuse with theirs therefore appealing to the population while simultaneously acting for the greater good of the society. Since elected officials are constantly changing no one official can become corrupt since he would then be replaced and never voted for again.
I believe that if in a political system if it were to take longer time to enact and enforce laws there is a less chance for mistakes to pass through the system. If it was easier to pass laws then i think that this would be a gateway for many corrupt politicians, who want to enforce a law which would benefit no one else except themselves, through the use of rhetoric and exaggeration would pass the law, and therefore become wealthy. If the process were to be long and arduous then there would be less of a chance for a faulty law to be enforced and thereby screwing up the government.
I would also prioritize main issues that concern the public, such as education, transportation, and employment. I believe that those topics are important and affect the whole society but they aren't given the attention that they deserve so they should be debated more, and more laws should be enforced which help and support the system (financially and internally).
Also in my government even though i would not allow monopolies i would allow businesses to do as they please except with few restrictions, such as health and ethics wise. I would only get involved in businesses to make sure that there is a safe working environment and that people are treated fairly and equally. I would not get involved with business affairs concerning deals which they make, or with the salary that they provide to their employees.
I agree with nessa7. It does not matter which political party you are for because each party will have ideas from the opposite party. It would be a good idea not to have political parties because we can judge the candidate by his or her ideas. Also, I agree that popular store chains are ruling the United States. For example, there used to be a store just to buy hardware products but now we can find these products in a nearby Wal-Mart. Many small businesses are disappearing because of competition between small businesses and world-wide companies.
I definitely agree with kslp in stating that education and empolyment opportunities are extremely important to a successful government. It is essential that the people have a proper education, for they will be the next generation of politians. It is important to ensure that education is funded for. I also agree that I would want my government to have more employment opportunities. The economy cannot flourish i people do not have jobs because they will not be making money and therefore cannot thn be spending money. As kslp had stated, this would hopefully decrease poverty.
-If i had the ability to design my own sort of government, i would allow for the people to have the greatest say in how the society runs. Laws will be passed based on popularity, and all sorts of issues such as abortion and gay marriage will all depend on the consent of the public. This is because the satisfaction of the public is more important than pleasing one individual.
-I would rather have a political system with the greatest possible political democracy that translates popular demands into laws and policies as effectively as possible. I prefer this system because it takes account of the consent of the public. This type of political system allows the public to share a voice in the government, and allows us as the citizens to shape our society. In addition i believed that the best way to govern is to listen to the public's need. By doing so, we can avoid rebellions and conflicts to a certain extent. If the people were not given the chance to take part in their government, there is a likely chance that the public will easily be displeased.
-I would rather have a political system that can make major changes quickly. I feel that in today's society, it takes a long period of time for change to occur. Congress is always so hesitant of taking action, which results in a longer waiting process for change to occur. However, there are times when change is needed. I believe that the government must learn to make changes on a quicker basis and they will please the public by doing so. When the public wants change, it is not for a trivial reason, therefor the government must act upon the consent of the public and make changes quickly.
I agree with Mike Matteo, the government should take the public opinion into great consideration. Mankind will fight for whatever they believe in. A real life example is America itself. We fought to be an independent nation, showing that people fight for what they believe in no matter how difficult it may be.
I agree with what thisislissok wrote. The idea that the politician has to not look at the immediate public response he gets, but at the long term effect is one I can agree with. I also agree that chaos would occur if the government was constantly changing. I am a big advocate for natural rights as well. I agree with decreasing foreign trade, but not all the way. I feel that, as thisislissok says, it would increase the American job market, but some trade is needed to keep the world economy running smoothly and keep good relations with other nations. I would suggest the end of outsourcing to increase jobs.
1) In my opinion, a political system with the greatest possible political democracy would be most efficient. Democracy can be defined as a representative government or “government by the people.” If I could create a government, I would create one that takes the demands of the majority of the people into great consideration by acting upon their desires immediately. I believe it should come down to the people in taking an active role in making the government aware of how they insist the country they live in should be brought out. This will allow citizens to speak their minds freely and possibly bring about new laws or bills that majority agrees on.
2) I do not agree with changing a law upon an unexpected situation as nessa7 mentioned. Making a quick change upon terrorist attacks is provincial thinking. The country should be already well equipped if that situation were to happen, especially after 9/11. If terrorists were attacking our country, there would not even be time to appropriately discuss what the correct approach is to take. It would be more of a spontaneous decision, which I feel, that is not smart. These types of decisions should require more time and thinking. Also, making major changes too often, and too quickly can leave many Americans puzzled about what the current law or policy is. Thisislissok stated a similar idea saying that there would be chaos. Instead, I side with jessicagiangrande in favoring the idea of having major changes hard to effect. More time will have been taken out to think about the decision and in the end, if the law is well thought out and planned it will allow for a more stable and consistent government.
3) In my government I would also reduce the prices for college tuition or provide students with better financial aid packages. I believe a valuable education is very important. Unfortunately there are many hard-working students who have the potential to go to a high-ranked school but cannot because they cannot afford it. I also do not agree with the fact that colleges give more money to people who are of a distinct race. I think it should solely be based on academics, standardized test scores, essays, and extra curricular activities.
1. I would rather have a political system that gives elected officials considerable latitude to do what they want to or feel is best without having to worry too much about public opinion. The statement, “The Constitution reflects a basic distrust of popular government” has been made because direct popular government is inefficient in terms of making quick major changes and decisions. It’s inefficient because majority of the population are uninformed, easily swayed, and lack long term thinking. Also, when immediate action must be taken in urgent situations, direct popular government would take too much time to react because everyone’s opinions must be reflected in the decision. If our political system had the greatest possible political democracy, it would be unstable, shifting positions frequently, and suffer from making decisions derived from lack of long term thinking.
2. A political system that can make major changes quickly would be better because it would keep the public content. Slow progression of major changes is exhausting to those who are directly affected by the change that have been waiting their whole lives. If major changes are to be made, it should be made quickly so that the people who need solutions can get them quicker.
My government would focus on improving public education for those who are not college bound. The accommodations to make higher education hold no interest for those who are unmotivated and unprepared. All students should not be taught in the same level when only a small fraction of them will be successful at a college level. The government should make adjustments to improve education that will prepare them for appropriate jobs and security in the middle class. The government has to realize that public education does not serve the needs of majority of young students.
I would also have the government make better approaches to law enforcement and income maintenance in extremely poor communities. Depreciating economic conditions and high levels of unemployment are increasing the rates of poverty and crime. The government should organize more federal programs and policies that will impact education and unemployment in poor communities.
I agree with nessa7 on the basis of political parties. I believe that the distinction of political parties is causing rivalries between the citizens of the United States and causing disunity among the nation. I also agree with nessa7's statement about big business. Even though large chain stores earn much income for the government, the creation of smaller family owned businesses would create more jobs for the public, which would inturn put more money into circulation.
I agree with LexiD. Elected officials should see what it is like being in the majority. The people want to be heard and they should be. with the government following what ideas the people have there will be an agreement throughout the nation. The people living in these situations are the ones that are going to know what is best.
In Response TO Jo-Ann Wong, i disagree wit the idea of a slow decision making process, for government functions such as relief after natural disaster or terrorist attacks, a quick response is needed to ensure the saftey of the people. If it took 3 weeks to get aid to New Orleans after hurricane Katrina, a lot more people would have died, by having a quick response, the government is able to take care of issues such as these, and get back to the bigger issues at hand.
I agree with blogger94 that major decisions made quickly is important. Our nation has to be efficient and effective. If we keep everything the same way or take too much time on one issue then America can not grow as a country. I also agree with gay marriage being out of politics because there is really nothing to settle about on that issue. Who we want to be with shouldn't be a decision politicians make for us. We love who we love, you can't force someone to do something they do not want to. Gay marriage should not be a big deal. This is reality you can't tell someone who they can't be with.
In response to vmazzela9: i agree with most of what Vmazzela has to say. I agree that some citizens are not well educated enough to make decisions for our nations. I also agree that immigration laws should be a lot stricter, just as the ability to recieve welfare should become harder to recieve. The only aspect that I disagree with vmazzela9 is the feeling she has about policy changing. I do not believe that policies should be easier to change. If they are easier to change,more policies would be changed more often. Thjis would lead to confusion of which policy is in play at that current time. For the most part, i feel that vmazzela9's design for government would be sufficient.
I agree with blogger, Ananda Ksee on her idea of lessening the countries spending.I think she is right when she says keep government spending to a minimum. This is a good idea because we are all ready so much money in debt and we need to improve. I also agree with her when she says we shouldn't be giving other countries money that don't even like us and especially when we are in debt.
I also agree with her saying about cutting down on immigration. I think she's absolutley right about people coming to the country the right way. Also, about the taxes. Why should other people be paying for these illegal immigrants? I agree with everything that Ananda Ksee said. I think she made very good points that need to be taken care of.
Flat Tax Girl, I agree with your idea of having a direct democracy with the use of better technology. It’s true that the makers of the Constitution feared a direct democracy because it would create a tyranny of the majority. But back then most people were uninformed, uneducated, and couldn’t communicate with one another as easily as we do today via internet. Today, everyone’s opinions are accessible with just a click of a button, and people are more educated. The government should take an advantage of the technological advancements today and make full use of it to run an effective government.
I agree with Jo-Ann Wong on the fact that the governemnt needs to have the power to do what they seem fit. public opinion changes one's point of view. The government is the only ones, in my opinion who are truly informed. sometimes the people are informed but most of the time they aren't, therefore the government needs to be able to act in the best way. I also agree with the policy of universal health care.
However, I disagree with her idea of slow decisons. If things were slow, then important decisions would take too long to happen. things need to happen fast. I understand that things would constantly change but I feel that they would only change if it needs to.
In response to thisislissok, I agree with what is said about the most democratic government possible. With a government as democratic as possible, it leaves everything in the government open to things like citizen voting and checks and balances. However with what is said about the speed of change, I agree to an extent. When you are making a change that does not need immediate attention, I agree it should take as long as it needs to that the government gets it right the first time. However the government should still be able to make changes quickly if needed, especially under chaotic or life and death circumstances.
I agree with jessicagiangrande's idea of shortening the unemployment period of time and increasing the number of jobs available. this is because with a smaller amount of time to find a job, people might work a little harder to become employed. adding to that, instead of lengthening the amount of time people receive unemployment benefits, I believe that it would be more beneficial to increase the amount of job opportunities available.
I agree with jonathenlamonte because i feel that the government is spending its money wastefully changing street signs or ding other pointless deeds which increases our debt and does not help us at all whatsoever. Instead they should try to find programs which would help decrease our debt.
Post a Comment