Compulsory Voting Law?

Respond to the following: the US should enact compulsory voting laws.

Health Care Proposals

Below is a link that details some of the different health care proposals working its way through Congress.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/08/12/us/politics/0812-plan-comparison.html#tab=0

Helpful Web Site for 4th Amendment

http://wiki.idebate.org/index.php/Debate:Student_Lockers,_school_right_to_search

Power of the Police

In the interest of public safety, the exclusionary rule should be abolished and instead, cops who violate search warrants or fail to use them should be punished.

Burning the American Flag

Do you agree or disagree with the court's decision in Texas v. Johnson? Explain.

Federal Drinking Age Reading

In this example, did the federal government abuse its power? (state your opinion with reasons)

Essay Suggestions

- read the question carefully and figure out what you are being asked to write
about; focus especially on the key terms that define your task (define,
discuss, explain)
- organize your ideas and briefly outline your essay before you write
(approximately five minutes)
- write the essay; it should have a brief intro (one or two sentences that
restate the question), the factual information, evidence and examples, and a
conclusion (one or two sentences).
- most AP essays have several parts-make sure you answer all of them
- support your answer with specific examples and evidence
- if time permits, reread the essay and make sure you have answered the
question fully
- don't try to "fake me out" with ideas that do not answer the question
- do your best!

California Article on the Initiative

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/20/local/me-analysis20


I think you will find this article interesting.- Mr. Kersey

jesse's post

I personally have a hard time fully siding with one side all together. I see both positives and negatives in both directions. California is an example to me on why initiative should be abolished. California is in such turmoil right now, not fully because of initiative but a good amount. People don't want to pay high taxes but love asking the government to spend money. Keeping the decisions to our voted electives can be a good thing. The people we elect have a great understanding of our government and how it works, it's their job to do so. These people make decisions that are educated and respected, the problem lies in the corruption it todays government. I personally think that their are electives that put themselves before their people, state and country. If that is the case, and respectfully think it is in some cases, then the whole point of people electing senators, governors etc. is put to rest. Thats when initiative comes in handy because the people are actually making the decisions. In a perfect world that would be great because it would truly be the people making the decisions but we don't live in a perfect world. People can be ignorant, stupid, and selfish and that makes initiative obsolete. Getting a group of people together and getting a few signatures for something that brings no positive the the states people can create tension between government and its people. In a perfect world both ways would work perfectly and affectively. But we are far from perfect, so I believe finding a balance is finding a solution.

Initiative and Referendum

I disagree that California, Colorado and other states should abolish the use of the initiative. Using initiative, or in other words limiting the use of representatives in the government, citizens who are eligible to vote have more voice and power in the system. The main purpose of democracy is to grant people equal rights, with the initiative, people can directly involve in solving problems that they think are significant. The result of the process might not always be a success, but it gathers American people together to voice their own opinions. That is the real meaning of democracy, to get people to vote for what they want best.
The most convincing reason that can be brought on against the initiative is the argument of public knowledge. It questions if the citizens are well informed enough to not be altered easily by the media or other influences. I think it is basically the government's job to inform people. They might not have sufficient information about the issue because the representative system leaves their interest out of consideration. To give them the power to vote directly is to uphold the constitutional idea of equality.
The result of the initiative is profound. A popular example is the same-sex marriage issue in Ohio, 2004. Only one single problem regarding same-sex couple having marriages motivated citizens to vote, or to voice their opinions. It means that some controversial issues placed on the ballot can encourage people to participate more in the democratic process. They have their own voice, or their own power.

Initiative/Referendum Question

I do not agree that states such as Colorado and California should abolish their use of initiative. The use of the initiative gives citizens a direct say in their government just as the constitution says "for the people, by the people..." The initiative is a way for voters to have an impact in their government without representation. Whether the citizens are voting for "pregnant pigs" or "gambling lotteries" the initiative allows voters to express their opinions while getting involved in their government.

According to "Ballot Measures Preview" the 2004 election proved that presence of the initiative on the Ohio ballot made an impact. The main issue on the ballot was a ban on same sex marriage. This, being one on the main issues of debate today, made a huge impact on the presidential election. Many people believe that George W. Bush's win of Ohio of nearly two points is credited to the presence of the initiative.

It is proven that states with the initiative have a higher voter turn out by 3-5% than states without the initiative. The increase in voter turnout shows that having the initiative on the ballot makes Americans feel that they have a larger say in the election process. If the initiative can increase the voter turnouts by that margin in only 36 states, I believe that every state should adopt, not abolish the initiative to increase involvement in future elections.

The Initiative Decision

I do not believe that California, Colorado, and other states that use the initiative should abolish its use. In fact, I believe the opposite in thinking that all states should adopt the initiative as part of their voting process. Our government, being an indirect democracy, forces We, the People, to entrust elected officials in making choices that are in our best interest. But, who can better say what is in the best interest of a person than that him or herself. Through the initiative, citizens outside of legislature receive an opportunity to directly express their opinion on various matters and alter the law through popular vote.

The initiative has many positive influences on the American government. It can cause citizens to become more engaged, better educate voters on their decisions, and give the public a direct say. Some may argue that the general public is uniformed about the issues they would be voting on. To this, I would argue that the public is uneducated on matters because the current government has put them out in the cold. Due to the use of an indirect democracy, the public votes for representative who from then on makes decisions for them. If the initiative were put into action, people could then be more informed about the governments decisions by being a part of them. Citizens could gain the information they needed via the media and various other sources such as the internet and draw their own conclusions rather than have a representative draw a conclusion for them.

The initiative would also cause voters to become more involved. According to "Ballot Measures Preview 2008," voter turnout increased often by three to five points in 2004 when voters are provided with the use of the initiative. Because the people felt that their opinion counted, they too the time out of their busy schedules to voice their opinion directly in the election. While many voters may believe their single vote would not affect the outcome of something such as a presidential election, the initiative provides those with a say in a popular vote, (with no alteration of the people's voice such as that of the electoral vote used in the presidency), making them feel that their opinion is more seriously considered. This would obviously draw a voter to utilize their right to vote.

Finally, the public deserves a direct say in the laws that concern and will affect them, and the initiative does just that. In 2007, voters in Alaska passed a measure prohibiting the extension of benefits to the same-sex partners of government workers (National Conference of State Legislatures database). In this situation, the same-sex workers were the minority. The opinion that majorities can use the initiative to overwhelm minority rights is frequently voiced. However, this opinion is contradictory in itself. The purpose of a vote is for the public to have a choice between multiple candidates or policies. The majority is how a vote is determined and therefore, the majority should rule. Each person is initially given an equal say and the choice that has the popular vote has received it because the majority people believed it was in their best interest. For these and other reasons, the initiative should be adopted by all states, so that the"government of the people," can be decided "by the people, for the people."

Initiatives: Good or Bad?

California, Colorado, and other states that use the initiative should not abolish its use. Having initiatives on the ballots give citizens who are eligible to vote the ability to have a voice in government; a privilege they would otherwise not necessarily be entitled to. Even though their opinion may only be expressed on a issue such as "pregnant pigs," a person is still able to vote "yes" or "no" on something that they feel strongly about, and while doing so, are able to avoid special interest groups' attempts to block change or reform.

Because voters feel as if they have a say in their government when initiatives are used, there is an increased voter turnout, often by "three to five points" (Ballot Measures Preview 2008). Those three to five points can be the determining factor in close elections, such as the 2004 Presidential election in Ohio when George W. Bush narrowly won the ballot. Many gave credit to the prescence of the issue of gay marriage on the ballot for his victory. Even though it has not been proven that his victory happened because of the prescence of an initiative, people still went to the polls to vote.

The use of initiatives on ballots is important not only for the fact that people have a "larger voice," but they also have a reason to go to the polls; resulting in increased voter turnout. When people are given the opportunity to have a voice, they attempt to use it to the fullest extent. The prescence of initiatives gives citizens the right to choose what goes on or happens in their everyday life, and because of that, the use of initiatives should not be abolished.

Initiative Question

California, Colorado and other states that use initiatives and referendums should not be abolished. Although the outcome may not always be a success, and the issues are not always important nor relevant, it brings a positive aspect to the lives of the people living in the United States. The use of initiatives is done directly through the people. And while doing so, allow citizens to voice their opinions and also allow them to make a choice. As a result, it gets more people involved in the democratic process.

The chance to voice their opinions and thoughts are given to the people through the use of initiatives. According to our book, a direct democracy "is expected to produce both better citizens and better policies." Most citizens feel like they have a say through the initiatives and referendums. Subsequently, more people go to the polls to vote. They can affect the outcomes of certain elections as well, like the initiative used on the Ohio ballot in 2004. Although it did not increase significantly, the voter turnout for states with initiatives was three to five points higher than states without, according to the article we read "Ballot Measures Preview 2008." The use of initiatives and referendum gives the citizens of the United States the opportunity to make a choice and to express their opinions, and when given something so significant it should not be taken away.

Initiative/Referendum

I disagree that the use of initiatives and referendum should be abolished. They can be very helpful in terms of voter turnout, getting more people involved, and working around social interest groups in order to get new issues noticed by the general public. Though this system is not perfected and there are occasional unintended consequences, for the most part initiatives are a great way to give voters a voice.

In the past, it has been proven that initiatives have positively influenced voter turnout. The article we read, "Ballot Measures Preview 2008", stated that the 2004 election was won because of a certain initiative that was on the Ohio ballot. We can see how initiatives helped in this election, unfortunately it's not like that in every election.

Just because not every election has increased voter turnout due to referendum that does not mean they are still not extremely helpful in getting the general public more involved with political issues. Though America is a democracy it is not a direct democracy. The people don't actually rule. As far as freedoms go we definitely have more of a say than most people in most other countries. Being able to put specific issues on ballots however, really helps spread certain messages and get people involved.

Aside from increasing voter turnout and getting more people involved, initiatives are one of the only ways to get around special interest groups. Normally certain groups have a heavy influence on what reforms get voted on and what actually gets changed. When people come up with initiatives they can work around the groups so that they can't stop change. Basically initiatives recognize the people as having power and give them enough of a voice to get the issue heard and eventually turned into a law.

Power to the People? Maybe.

It cannot be said definitively that initiatives and referendum are in all instances beneficial nor are they a drawback in all instnaces. Indeed, it is not a black and white issue. However, intiatives and referenda are beneficial generally speaking and in most cases

Indeed, these measures preserve democracy. Author and historian Joseph Ellis affirms that such a defining quality of our nation is critical to maintain, citing in Founding Brothers that the most successful governments of the world have been those that were democratic in nature, including ours. From its inception, the United States has sought to be the successful, democratic government that it is. In fact, "liberty" is described as an "unalienable right" in the Declaration of Independence and the document lauds the notion that "governments are instituted among men." These are ideals which we have embraced as a country since 1776 and should never disregard. Initiatives and referenda, by providing such freedom to the people in making political and policy decisions, assure that the United States willl never lose sight of these democratic principles. Furthermore, these measures help put an end, by putting decisions in the hands of the people, to the sometimes never-ending legislative bickering and stalling of proposals that is often cited as a negative aspect of democracy. Despite the beauty of American democracy, intiaitives and referenda sometimes do not make for the best outcomes though.

Clearly, there are instances when voters should not be given the opportunity of a referendum or initiative. Typically, a voter is solely concerned with his or her own interests on a major issue without realizing the greater state interest, even in a time of crisis or even regarding a policy that is simply too morally wrongheaded or dangerous to persist. If there were a national referendum on the Temporary Assisted Relief Program (TARP), it is likely that voters would reject the assistance to the banks. What would have resulted may have been, as Pres. Obama has said, a "second coming of the Great Depression" had it not been for TARP. Had there been a national referendum on Pres. Ford's extremely unpopular decision to pardon Pres. Nixon in 1974, there undoubtedly would have been a resounding "no" from Americans at the polls. If the public had its way, America would have had to endure even more of its "long national nightmare." On the state level, in California, in the spring of 2009, voters rejected tax increases which could have saved billions in the state's budget crisis. All of these hugely critical policy decisions may produce long-term benefits for the people at large yet would be rejected by voters simply due to personal interests.

Here's what is clear: when an economic crisis exists or a hugely consequential moral issue or a matter of maintaining unity such as slavery, secession, or pardoning Nixon is debated, referenda and initiatives should not be applied. However, on a multitude of less significant topics, such as affirmative action or same-sex marraige, intiatives and referenda should exist in order to replicate the "government of the people" that Pres. Lincoln described.

Initiative Question

Do you agree or disagree with the following: California, Colorado, and other states that use the initiative should abolish its use.

Blog Posting Suggestions

1) get to the point quickly
2) relate your answers to readings we have done or class discussions whenever possible
3) during your post, if you respond to a classmate's post, make sure to clearly explain WHY you agree or disagree with their analysis
4) if the question deals with a political problem or proposed reform, make sure to briefly discuss the problem/issue (including why it is a problem) and then explain WHY you agree or disagree with the reform(s)