'Participation Report'
Ezsrylluvey
pop_12345.docxPOP 1
Go to
http://www.realdemocracy.com/
This group proposes some pretty radical ideas. On the left side of the screen, click on Amend the US Constitution. Respond to one or more of these questions:
What do you think about the changes proposed in this amendment? Explain.
What are the chances such an amendment will be passed? Explain.
Can you identify the political ideology of the website’s founder? If so, how?
Note: Respond to one question at a time, please. You can post as many messages as you like, but too much information about too many different topics in one message is confusing. You may also bring in topics from the POP 1 survey during the discussion.
After you have posted your first message, please continue to participate in discussion throughout the week. I’m looking for interaction, not monologues. Don’t forget to cast your vote in POP 1 at the Surveys tool.
Locked after Monday, June 6, 2016 11:59 PM EDT
Bottom of Form
Top of Form
· My Opinion on the Proposed Amendment
Actions for My Opinion on the Proposed Amendment
Madisen Saunders posted May 31, 2016 11:41 PM
What these people are wanting to do is to rewire the entire voting system and make it all about "the people" giving us local voters all the influence on who is president, vice president, governor, ect, They are eliminating the electoral college and the delegate system. I do agree with this aspect of the proposed amendment; however, as I began reading further into the proposal, the view seemed to change from the voting system to providing students with new technology in their homes as well as paying for four years of college! As a student myself, of course that excites me, but I cant help but think of the downfall this would also cause to our society. I started thinking "well, where is this money going to come from?" and I was answered in the next section. Already existing public education funds they say! Well that's fine and dandy until you think about what public schools are already using that money on. I suppose they could use older textbooks and cut down on art supplies, the music program, theater, and sports until you come across a school like where I went to high school. Our funds got cut so low that we had to eliminate our high school band and choir as well as use super old (literally falling apart) textbooks. What do you do then? There is no way the funding we were allowed at my high school would be efficient enough to buy everyone laptops, even if you had to return them at the end of your four years. As I continued reading they also mentioned eliminating income tax! I don't know about you all, but I am all for income tax when it is to pay social security and medicare and things such as that; however when it is used to pay interest on the nation's debt I'm not so happy. Even with the downsides to income tax included, I still enjoy getting that money back at the end of the year. Overall, I do not agree with this amendment.
·
·
·
In the proposed amendment they are talking about changing the way voting is done. I believe that the government would not go for changing the way voting is done today. If they tried to change the way voting was done it would be a hassle and not just having to explain to make sure that all of the people know what to do but it would change the way the government handles things. When voting's come down to a tie it is up to the higher people to settle it but if all of the power was in the people's hands then the government would probably not be able to help with the tie. I do not see this proposed amendment getting approved because I am not sure that they would want the people to have all of the power.
more
· What I think of proposed amendment
Actions for What I think of proposed amendment
The proposed amendment talks about the reconfiguration of the current voting system. It calls for a direct voting system which seems to eliminate the Electoral College and the Delegate system... I can understand why people are frustrated with this system, because even though you cast your vote in the ballet box, there are powers that are greater than the voter. In elections past, notable Bush and Gore, the electoral college has been the deciding factor in the outcome. If someone wins the popular vote, that doesn't mean they win the election. However, I don't understand how the new system would be nonpartisan , because there will be different view points from the voters. Even though they can directly vote- how can everyone have the same general ideas.
What are the chances such an amendment will be passed? Explain.
There is a 99% chance of it not passing. The Constitution is nearly 230 years old with only 27 amendments added. Two-thirds of the Senate would have to support it and then pass it to the state for a vote- which this amendment is basically saying they failed and be would be stripping away their own power to govern the masses.
Although this amendment is very radical in many respects, I believe that it brings to light many of this issues that Americans are unsatisfied with in today's political atmosphere. Section one of the amendment proposes a Nonpartisan Direct Representative Democracy Government, which entails that not only will citizens vote directly on policy issues or bills, but will also directly elect the officials who will enact the policy issues or pass the bills into laws. I see two issues with section one; Nonpartisan politics are not common place in the US, we value our political opinions and the cores of which they are rooted in the political party system. Oftentimes I believe the term "Nonpartisan politics" is used to entice voters who are overwhelmed by the mass media projecting political party antics in a negative light, however I do not foresee a future in US politics without our current political parties staging the scene. The second issue with section one of the proposed amendment is the idea that eligible voters would in fact show up to the polls to vote for every single proposed bill. Turnout in recent National elections, prior to Barack Obama have shown a very slim turnout and I believe it is too idealistic to assume voters will show up in full force for a bill that may or may not affect them.
The most shocking, in my opinion, of the proposed amendments is section 6 stating the repeal of the national income tax. I do understand that the want for a lower federal income tax or no income tax at all is a very popular discussion among many Americans however it is simply not achievable. The sole operation of our Government and the stability of its principles depends on the levying of income taxes. The tax code is one of the most complex legal doctrines imaginable and yes, I believe repeals should me made to shorten the code and to make it more easily understandable, however it is a necessary part of our way of living. Section 6 states that income taxes will be abolished within 4 years of the amendment passing, however the amendment gives no valuable or reasonable substitute for levying taxes and filling the revenue gap that will be inevitable if the United States Government stops collecting taxes. Section 9 states that the direct education initiative will be funded through competitive contracts with the private sector, but how will we fund other necessities such roads, water treatment, dams etc.? The list is endless and no explanation is given.
Can you identify the political ideology of the website’s founder? If so, how?
Liberalism is the political ideology of the website’s founder. The amendment shows his desire to remove the college electoral, give the power of government to the people, do away with income taxes, and have the people vote on matters of taxation.
Question:
What do you think about the changes proposed in this amendment? Explain.
Response:
To start off, I am not very familiar with our government and how it runs. I have a general idea, but definitely not enough to vote on political and sovereign power and public policy. If I am correct on that, which hopefully I am, we vote and then the electorate votes for the final decision. I just don't see how that is a good idea. I feel that we would constantly be voting on things, and that there would be no checks and balances for the government. That idea alone just doesn't sound logical to me.
more
· What are the chances such an amendment will be passed? Explain.
Contains unread posts
Actions for What are the chances such an amendment will be passed? Explain.
Courtney Beverly posted Jun 3, 2016 8:51 PM
I dont think the chances that this amendment will pass because of the drastic change i dont know much about how our government works but this seems to be a little much. I dont agree with the electoral party having compete control. I believe they still have to answer to someone and be held accountable for all actions good or bad.
· What do you think about the changes proposed in this amendment?
I personally do not feel that the amendments will be changed due to our countries stagnant stance on evolving. However, I am not that familiar with our government and the polices within. I think that Section 4 would probably be the most difficult amendment because of the writer's desire to have public officials evaluated annualy. If this were to happen, taxes would sky rocket because of the money that would be spent to make this happen. I'm looking forward to learning more about our government and how it operates.
POP 2
You are learning about interest groups this semester by monitoring a group you chose. The governors of the 50 US states have formed their own interest group—The National Governors Association. Typically, interest groups are formed by individuals who form groups because of shared interest in policy. Here you have an interesting situation of one area of government lobbying another area of government.
The federal system established by the US Constitution assigns some powers to the federal government & reserves all others for the states. Read the history of US Federalism in the chapter on Federalism. In particular note shifts of power away from the states over time as the scope of the federal government has grown. The governors formed this interest group in response to their shared concerns over the rightful roles of the two levels of government.
Go to
www.nga.org
Click on Policy Positions (on the far right in a box under the heading “Federal Relations”) and read the organization’s positions regarding the relationship between the levels of government.
Respond to ONE of these questions:
What are the governors’ concerns? Do you share any of their concerns? Explain.
What powers should the federal government have? What powers should the state governments have? Be specific--& explain your answers.
Do you think the federal government has too much power? Are there powers which should be returned to the states?
Are there things the federal government can do better than the states can? Explain--& be specific.
Note: Respond to one question at a time, please. You can post as many messages as you like, but too much information about too many different topics is confusing.
Once you have posted your first message, please continue to participate in discussion throughout the week. And don’t forget to cast your vote in POP 2 at the Surveys tool.
Top of Form
· What are the governors' concerns? Do you share any of their concerns?
Contains unread posts
Actions for What are the governors' concerns? Do you share any of their concerns?
Tristan Brown posted Jun 6, 2016 3:55 PM
Based on the Principles for State-Federal Relations, it is clear that the NGA's primary concern is "the preservation of state sovereignty." Although it's preamble states they "works to preserve and promote a balanced relationship," it is clear by nearly all of its principles that the NGA would prefer to be left alone in all of its governing decisions.
i do agree that the states should base its policies on the will of its voters and govern accordingly. If a policy is enacted, and then determined to violate a persons, or a groups, constitutional rights...then, the federal govt should step in.
· What are the governors' concerns? Do you share any of their concerns?
The governors' concerns deal with the stability, growth, improvement, and safety of the nation and its people. I share the concern that students coming out of high school are not prepared for college or a career. I come from a small high school (approx. 400 students) where we do not have access to a high level of education. The only way I was able to truly prepare myself for college was by taking dual-enrollment classes through local colleges. I think that in order to prepare students for college, they should have a large variety of classes to choose from, particularly ones that interest them and that they can use in college. Students are forced to take classes that they do not need and will never use again. Similarly, college is not for everyone. I also believe that high school students should be able to choose whether or not to take upper level math, chemistry, physics, and biology courses. Students that know they are not going to college should have the opportunity to choose to take all CTE courses such as carpentry and shop classes or cosmetology and interior design courses rather than advanced material in order to be more prepared for the work force.
Also, I agree with the governors' concern for the environment and agree that i order to maintain a healthy environment, we must continue to implement programs at a local and state level. It is so important that today's as well as future generations are made aware of the ever increasing issues with our environment and how to protect and preserve it.
Lastly, I share the concern of child nutrition. The obesity rate among children is too high, and a lot of that has to do with children not having access to healthy meals. Many lower class families rely on fast food and convenience stores for groceries, knowing that they will be buying processed foods. If children had access to three healthy meals a day, the amount of obesity could be significantly reduced.
· What are the governors’ concerns? Do you share any of their concerns? Explain.
The governors' have concerns that mainly deal with improving the economic growth and security improvements of the nation and the states. The economic growth concerns may not directly say that they are improving the economy but most things improved in the nation are for the profit in the end. One concern that I share with the governors' is the education reform. I agree with this because I have seen many students at my college who are definitely unprepared for college level work and I however was very over prepared for college level work coming out of the Maryville City school system. It is possible for every student to be prepared for college level work, the effort just needs to be put in more by every school system and to create more strict standards that are achievable with hard work. Another concern that I share with them is child nutrition. I have seen first hand many overweight and obese children along with very malnourished children in the school systems. The school lunches need to be a healthy alternative for both childhood situations along with the healthy children that provide key nutrients daily. Another concern that I share is veterans affairs. I agree that the government should be putting more money into this organization to aid veterans not only when they come back from war/deployment but also throughout their future. I have seen firsthand with my grandfather the struggles that the VA has in providing healthcare in a way that elderly and disabled veterans can receive.
· Discussion #2, Jordan Ayres, What are the governors' concerns? Do you share their concerns?
Security, Emergency Management, and Public Safety
A governors' main concerns is keeping the people safe and secure. In todays world with all the violence and terrorism constantly arising this is not an easy task. Although, the governors believe that if state and federal governments were to strengthen their relations this process would me much efficient. As the article I listed above states, "Protecting the public requires close coordination among all levels of government, as well as with the private sector." The governors are pressing for better relations with the federal government, understandably so.
I completely share the concern that this is an issue, and needs to be resolved. Sharing information and leveraging resources between State and Federal would be of much help. Any thoughts on this article? Anyone think differently?
1
· Are there things the federal government can do better than the states can?
The Federal Government is immense in size, ability, and power- specifically the powers designated to it by the constitution. However, throughout history the Federal government has slowly but effectively increased it's stronghold over power to a questionable level. State governments are feeling this stronghold, and as indicated by the National Governors Association they are undeniably fed-up. But is too much Federal power a bad thing? Like many questions in this realm I think the answer cannot simply be yes or no. In fact, I think an "it depends" answer is in order.
Are there things the federal government can do better than the states?
Yes; I believe the specific powers designated to the Federal government through the constitution inherently allow for better management over certain aspects of government. Though not specifically stated in the constitution, the Federal Government is much better at levying taxes than state governments. The Internal Revenue Service has the means and resources to process every tax return filled, audit a sample of tax returns, and detect fraud within the tax system. State government have only the ability to perform a minuscule amount of these procedures in comparison the IRS and they are agreeably less effective overall.
No; State Governments are more in-tune with their constituents, and they have an ability to fine tune laws and regulations to appeal to the needs of their residents. States, by the nature of the constitution have fine-tuned their law enforcement services allowing the federal government to only step in on need basis. States have established police systems based on jurisdiction to effectively catch criminals in the hopes of eliminating crime. The federal government has a specialized law enforcement that deals with higher level crimes. If the federal government were to step into the place of state governments law enforcement I believe the crime rate would go up simply because the federal government does not have the necessary resources including staff to effectively alleviate crime as the state governments have proven they can.
Therefore, it depends on the issue. In some cases the Federal Government can do things better than the states and in other cases they cannot. It is not easy to say whether the Federal Government should step back and release some powers to the states, or if the states should let the Federal Government step in when needed on certain tasks or issues. I believe that it really comes down to resources, and whoever has the better/more effective resources should control the issue at hand.
POP 3
Go to
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/flagburning.htm
You probably don’t have time to read all the resources at this website, but spend some time reading some items. Study the issue. Then respond to one of these questions:
Should we be permitted to burn the American flag in protest?
What is the current ruling in this area? Do you agree or disagree with it?
Explain your answers. Defend your position. Refer to information at the website or in the text.
Note: Respond to one question at a time, please. You can post as many messages as you like, but too much information about too many different topics is confusing.
Once you have posted your first message, please continue to participate in discussion throughout the week. And don’t forget to cast your vote in POP 3 at the Surveys tool.
· Should we be permitted to burn the American flag in protest?
I do not believe that anyone should be able to burn the American flag in protest. I think that there are other ways to protest that does not desecrate a special part of the country. I also think that it is disrespectful to the troops that fight and give their life for the flag and for the country. Also the people burning the flag are disrespecting them self because I am sure that the country has given stuff to them and aided them either in education or food.
· Current Ruling on Desecration of the American Flag
Several important and historic court cases have led to the final determination by the highest ruling United States Supreme court on the issue of burning the American Flag. U. S. vs O'Brien (1968) ; Schact vs. U. S. (1970) ; Spence vs. Washington (1974) and Texas vs Johnson (1989) have all tested the limits of this issue. The most recent of these cases, Texas v. Johnson involved Mr. Gregory Lee Johnson who publicly burned an American flag as a means of political protest. Johnson was convicted of desecrating a flag in violation of Texas law, however the US Supreme Court overturned this ruling citing " the First Amendment to the Constitution says it's unconstitutional for a government (whether federal, state or town) to prohibit the desecration of a flag, because it's seen as "symbolic speech." While burning a flag is actually an action, a non-verbal act makes a similar statement." Therefore burning of the flag is protected under a citizens first amendment right.
The Amendment in proposal by the website cited above states "The Congress and the States shall have Power to Prohibit the Physical Desecration of the Flag of the United States." This amendment would directly contradict the current ruling by the Supreme Court and take away the freedoms granted to us citizens by the constitution. I personally would never want to burn the American flag, I love this country and the flag that represents it. However, I do not believe we should limit the freedom of speech to those who do want to burn the flag whether it be in political protest or otherwise.
Absolutely not we should not even be allowed to burn the flag as a "form of speech" in my opinion. It is so disrespectful to the men and women that have fought and died for this country. US citizens who think that it is okay and go on doing it should be punished or as someone has said send them away to a place that they think is better than America (no where, lol). But if people want to protest, find another way. Don't disrespect YOUR OWN country like that. In the article it says that they're trying to propose an amendment that will stop the burning of the flag in any way but they are needing more votes from the Senate. It shouldn't even be on the table, Burning of the flag should be prohibidato. period.
Any U.S citizen should not be allowed to burn the flag. I honesty do not see it as freedom of speech because is burning the flag something you use your vocal chords for or a written message? No. Burning the flag is symbolic of "I hate this country" or "something is obviously wrong with this country". Burning an american flag is disrespectful and is seen as spitting in the face of the numerous generations of troops that have fought to keep this country free and fought for your 1st Amendment right to be able to burn the flag. To me, it is pointless to even fight for this country if its people are going to abuse the very freedoms our troops are working so diligently to preserve. I am sure the framers didn't mean this when they wrote the Constitution. There are plenty of other ways to get your point across during protest than burning the America flag, the symbol of our nation, your freedom, and your life.
Contains unread posts
Actions for Burning the American Flag
Samantha Crews posted Jun 15, 2016 4:08 PM
Currently, the law is that people are able to burn the American Flag. It has been found to be an infringement of people's First Amendment rights to not allowing them to exercise their views- such as burning the American Flag. I can see both sides of the argument- on the one hand I think the law should be changed on principle- people have died so that we can maintain our freedoms and no one should be allowed to defame them by mutilating the flag in anyway. However, the First Amendment does give people the right to exercise their freedom of speech and burning the American flag is making a speech. However, if one is arrested for burning the American flag I think that they should lose their right to vote indefinitely.
· Should we be permitted to burn the flag?
Contains unread posts
Actions for Should we be permitted to burn the flag?
Tristan Brown posted Jun 15, 2016 10:03 AM
I don't think it should ever be "okay" to burn the American flag, unless disposing of a tattered one. The American flag is not only a symbol of or nation, it is a physical reference of this nations history; the nations lost military personnel; our nations battles through independence; our nations battle for civil liberties, etc. All of my family have served in the US military-mom, dad, grandparents, uncles- and everyone of them to a person gets highly offended when this topic is brought up...they feel it dishonors the service and the deaths of their friends who died serving their country. I cant say that I disagree with their feelings.
There are hundred different ways to protest the US government, big corporations, etc,...but, burning the flag isn't one of them.
Rather than fining or imprisoning them, we should just "ship" to whatever country they think they like more.
· Should we be permitted to burn the American flag in protest?
The first Amendment When being wrong or right anything OPINIONATED is useless in the court of law. Fact being any law against flag burning directly interferes with the first amendment (specifically freedom of speech) which automatically makes it null and void. The system is built so anything that conflicts with the amendments are useless, end of story.
POP 4
Go to
http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/support/polling-fundamentals/
Answer one of these questions.
What did you learn about polling?
Are survey results more accurate these days? Or less accurate? Explain.
Did this information change your opinion of polling in any way?
How much attention should elected officials pay to public opinion polls?
Based on what you’ve read at this website & in the text, how valid & reliable are the POP surveys in this class?
Note: Respond to one question at a time, please. You can post as many messages as you like, but too much information about too many different topics is confusing.
Once you have posted your first message, please continue to participate in discussion throughout the week. And don’t forget to cast your vote in POP 4 at the Surveys tool.
I think that in this class, the surveys are both valid and reliable. Considering that everyone is required to participate and answer every question in the survey, there is little room left for error. Also, since we [are required to] discuss the topic before taking the survey, we are allowed time t change our opinions as well as consider the pros and cons of a topic carefully. I do not think that government issued surveys are reliable however because an average citizen's chance of being surveyed out of the entire U.S. population is 1 in 100. Which to me, is not high enough to consider accurate. In modern day America, there is so much diversity, how do we know that the minority groups are being accurately represented? I get that they choose who they survey carefully to ensure the best outcome possible, but can we really be sure? Also, surveys that are used in interest groups are not accurate for anyone other than the people in that interest group. Some are very biased, for example a group may take a poll on who in their group believes the importance of protecting the monarch butterflies habitat presides over the importance of creating more farm land and send it to congress in order to represent the "opinion of the poeple" when in all reality, the opinion of their group is only one small drop in the bucket.
· What did I learn about polling?
The interesting takeaway I have after reading the article is chances of getting called and asked to participate in a poll. With a 1 in 100 chance to get called, if 2,500 polls were ran in a year only 2,500,000 would participate in it, excluding over 17,000,000 people and their opinions. I've always asked who are these people they're calling and why don't they call me, but with those statistics, I may never be called. The amazing thing is though how accurate these polls usually turn out to be. Like in these election polls we see everyday, and have in the past, usually the results are either spot on or within the margin of error. That just really amazes me how close the polls come in predicting the outcomes.
· Are survey results more or less accurate now?
Contains unread posts
Actions for Are survey results more or less accurate now?
Samantha Crews posted Jun 25, 2016 2:09 PM
I think that survey result accuracy has stayed the same. People tend to answer more honestly if they believe that there will be some sort of anonymity. As a whole I think that more people participate in surveys than before as there are a plethora of ways to communicate with someone; however I do not necessarily believe that people are more or less honest than they have been.
I will say that not all opinion polls are equal and it is important to get an unbiased sampling of people to take the survey and not simply ask people who could potentially agree with you.
· Did this information change your opinion in polling in any way?
This information, along with information in the textbook, definitely changed my opinion toward public opinion surveys. I was completely unaware of the significance of the various polls--the fact federal funds, grants, etc., could depend on the results. Most importantly, I never viewed my participation in a public opinion survey as a form of "political participation"that should be taken as a serious as voting. I, most certainly, will now...if I can discern the difference between a telemarketer and a pollster fast enough.
· What did you learn about polling?
I learned that polling is based off of sampling, especially telephone surveying. I did not know that companies had specific ways of conducting random scientific sampling by asking for the person in the house who had the most recent birthday, and by asking for the youngest male in the household. I did not know much about polling before this POP. I had assumed that the telephone surveys were done by asking the first member of the household who answered the phone, and I did not realize that older people were easier to get on the phone than younger people.
· Discussion Post #4 POP Jordan Ayres
Did this information change your opinion of polling in any way?
Going through the website and learning more about polling did change my opinion of it. Before reading through I probably would've just thrown it away thinking it was not a big deal, but in all reality it is. Polls are a good way for the voices of the the citizens to be heard, so why would you just ignore them.
· How much attention should elected officials pay to public opinion polls?
In my opinion, elected officials should pay special attention to public opinion polls. Granted their are a lot of different opinions and they will definitely be a wide variety of opinions, but the opinions of citizens are important. I am not sure what elected officials would do if they were to pay more attention to public opinion polls. My hope would be that they would change something for the better, or keep something the same for the better of the country. Then again what is better for the country is all opinion based. Either way I feel like they should pay a lot of attention to these polls because what is the point in wasting time on these polls if no one will listen and because everyone's opinion matters and should be listened to whether it changes anything or not. These pinions could also lead to good ideas.
POP 5
Go to
http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm
Read about some of the parties. Afterwards, respond to one of these questions:
Why are there so many “third” parties? What role do these play?
Are any of them serious contenders for offices held by the two major parties?
Note: Respond to one question at a time, please. You can post as many messages as you like, but too much information about too many different topics is confusing.
Once you have posted your first message, please continue to participate in discussion throughout the week. And don’t forget to cast your vote in POP 5 at the Surveys tool.
· Are any of them serious contenders for offices held by the two major parties?
Absolutley, the third party are contenders. They already have local and state representatives, and Paul...a life long member of the Libertarian Party...is/was the Governor of Texas, although he won as a Republican. Simply winning with the political party tag behind your name is not the main point, in my opinion. Getting your ideas into the offices is!
As for threatening the major parties in a presidential election--I think not. Until Congress changes the requirement that a candidate gets 5% of the election vote, in order for the party to get matching federal funds, there is just too much financial discrepancy between them.
· Are any of them serious contenders for offices held by the two major parties?
C
I do not think that these parties are really serious contenders for office unless they pick up a big name politician to be on their ballot. I think that that is the only way that they will really have a chance because they do not really have the pull that the main two parties have as far as a majority and other big name political supporters.
more
4
· Are any of them serious contenders for offices held by the two major parties?
I believe that the Green Party has a serious contender for the office of the Presidency. Jill Stein is their nominee for president, and though she may not have much support in the polls right now, there has been a lot of coverage of her on social media during this election cycle. many news websites are reporting that she will be on around forty-seven state ballets come the general election. I do not think she will win, but she is paving the way for third party politicians to be taken seriously in the future.
· Are any 'Third' parties serious contenders for Office?
I don't believe I will see a third party take an office that is currently held by a Democrat or Republican. There is so much money that the two major parties use to further advance their causes, it leaves the third parties strapped for cash, and unfortunately, if they don't have cash then there is no way that they can get their message out to the public. I wish a third party would emerge as a serious contender to the two major parties, forcing them to talk more serious about issues rather than the silly stuff we see on tv today.
· The Libertarian Party, A Serious Contender.
I can honestly see the Libertarian party eventually out weighing both the Republican and Democratic parties. Why? Well, consider the major concerns in today's society..the legalization of marijuana, gay marriage..gun rights.. the Libertarian party is for all these things! (which i think is great, by the way) Also consider the low voter participation for the younger generation.. If more of the younger generation participated, who do you think would be in office? Libertarians! The younger generation is much more open minded about the majority of the issues that the Libertarians support, which means, when they get older and wiser in politics, who are they bound to vote for? Really, much of the younger generation votes for the republican or democratic party just because that is the party their families support, what would happen if they actually got involved in politics and thought fr themselves? I think it would be an absolute takeover. The United States is becoming a very diverse place and it seems to me that the Libertarians are the only party that accurately represents the diversity that many of us Americans have come to love.
more
