WIN THE WHITE HOUSE!! Post your Campaign Strategy Below

Voting on the Internet

During the past two centuries of constitutional government, this nation has gradually adopted a more expansive view of popular participation.  It seems logical that the next step in our democratic progress is permitting voters to cast ballots via the internet.  Not only would such a reform make voting easier, but it would permit us to have more elections.  For example, when a city council wants voters to decide whether to build a new football stadium or when there is need for a special election to fill the term of a member of Congress who has died or resigned, election officials could announce via e-mail and other means that voting via the internet will commence and close on specified dates.  The technology exists to have voting via the internet. 

1.  Should we allow it?
2.  What advantages do you see in allowing people to vote via the Internet?
3.  What disadvantages do you see in allowing people to vote via the Internet?

Voter Turnout

Throughout the course of U.S. history, the right to vote has been extended and protected for women and racial minorities.  Groups that did not have the franchise, or that had been effectively barred or discouraged from using it, have become as active in their rates or voting as white men.

In the following table, note that women have voted in higher percentages than men in each election since 1992.  It took decades for women to reach this milestone and dismiss the old adage that "politics is men's business."  The rate of voting among African Americans was about 10 percentage points below white persons in 1992 and 1994, but more recently has lagged by only approximately 4 percentage points.  Hispanics are not yet participating at rates similar to those of women and African Americans.  History suggests that over time this will change.

1.  Why might the rate of voting for women have increased over time?

2.  How do presidential elections influence rates of voting?  Why?

3.  What factors might explain the change in the rate of voting among African Americans?

The US Census

As established in the Constitution, every 10 years the government conducts a count of all persons in the United States.  For the 2000 census, the Census Bureau proposed using random sampling rather than attempting to count all households.  The proposed sample approach would have contacted 90% of the households in a census tract consisting of roughly 1,700 individuals.  The bureau would then check the accuracy of the sample by surveying 750,000 households throughout the nation and adjusting the final total accordingly.  The sampling approach responded to complaints about the flawed 1990 census, which cost $2.6 billion (a 400% increase over the cost of the 1980 census) and failed to account for 10 million people while double-counting 6 million others, according to a study by the National Academy of Sciences. 

The 2010 census did not employ statistical sampling.  In addition, while the census has always counted all individuals, citizens and non-citizens alike, it has not always asked about citizenship.  Some members of Congress introduced legislation to require that citizenship be a question on the 2010 census, and that illegal immigrants be excluded from the census count.

What do you think?  As we assess the success of the 2010 census and look to the future of censuses, who should the census count, and how should they be counted?  What arguments would you make for and against the use of sampling or questions about citizenship? (These are just questions for thought, you do not have to answer them here in your discussion)

Both questions are really less about how to count as whom to count.  The proposed sampling method would have produced a more accurate count of inner-city Hispanics and African Americans- the most difficult to count.  Hispanics and African Americans are more likely to be homeless or living in poverty in urban areas.  Using a sampling method would arrive at a more accurate count of these groups and would likely have resulted in a greater representation for Hispanics and African Americans in state legislatures and the U.S. House of Representatives.  A more complete count of minorities could also mean that the Republican Party would lose a few seats in the House to Democrats, which is one reason Republicans generally opposed the sampling approach while Democrats favored it.

The Constitutionality of sampling is disputed, as the Constitution calls for an "actual enumeration" of the people. Democrats are quick to point out that under three Presidents- Jimmy Carter, George Bush, and Bill Clinton- the Justice Department concluded that sampling is legal.  Samping as a method of determining poplation for congressional apportionment is not allowed under current law, while methods similar to sampling in order t fill in data missing from the "actual enumeration" has been upheld in the Supreme Court.

Citizenship has been a question asked in the past in the census (1812-1960) but noncitizens have always been counted.  Slaves counted as three-fifths of a person in the Constitution for apportionament purposes, and the 14th Amendments refers to the "whole number of persons" being counted without regards to citenzship.  But counting illegal immigrants runs counter to our notions of political representation and is understandable unpopular.  If illegal marriages were excluded it could take away seats from states like California and Texas.

1.  Why do you think sampling may result in highers counts of minorities?
2.  Do you think it's possible to decide questions about representation without considered partisan ideas?
3.  Should illegal immigrants and persons under the age 18 be counted for purposes of apportioning seats in Congress or for counts of persons for distribution of federal monies to state and local governments?

Women in the Workforce Discussion Board

As mentioned in the text, although the Equal Rights Amendment had substantial support, it failed to get the necessary votes to be ratified.  Many who were opposed to the amendment suggested that women would be subject to the military draft and that full-time housewives and mothers would be forced to work outside the home.
Even without the ERA, the role of women in American society has changed greatly since the amendment was first passed by Congress and submitted to the states.  In 1973, for example, approximately 76% of all men were employed in the civilian labor forced compared to only 42% of all women.  And, unemployment figured for women seeking work during that year was 50% higher than for their male counterparts.
In contrast, by 2010 nearly 54% of all women were employed in the civilian labor force compared to 64% of men.  Although unemployment figures for both men and women were higher due to the troubled economic conditions of the day, a smaller percent of women who were actively seeking work were unable to get it (8.6%) as compared to men (10.5%). 
Even though women are more greatly represented in the workforce today than they were when Congress passed the ERA, one of the proponents' primary goals, removing income inequality, has remained elusive.  According to the Department of Labor, women on average received lower wages than men.  For every dollar the average male worker makes, the averages female worker makes only 81 cents, even after controlling for the type of employment.  For examples, in 2010, the median weekly salary for male financial managers was $1,546 compared to only $1,022 for their female counterparts.

Why might income inequality persist even though men and women serve in more equal numbers today in the work force?

(Information from David Magleby's text: Government by the People)

Role of Government Discussion Board

State and local governments are on the front lines of most programs for helping the needy.  They provide much of the money and/or administration for unemployment insurance for the jobless, health care clinics and hospitals for the poor, school lunch programs for hungry children, and homeless shelters.  Although many US citizens see poverty firsthand as volunteers for local charities such as food pantries, some have doubts about how much government should do to help poor people who cannot take care of themselves.  According to the Pew Research Center's Spring 2007 Global Attitudes Survey, citizens of other nations vary greatly on the question of whether "it is the responsibility of the (state or government) to take care of very poor people who can't take care of themselves".
These opinions reflect very different social and economic conditions in each country.  Japan has a culture of self-reliance that puts the burden on individuals to help themselves, while Nigeria continues to suffer from some of the highest poverty rates in the world.  In this regard, US citizens tend to mirror the Japanese- they want government to help the less fortunate but also want the less fortunate to help themselves.  As a general conclusion, citizens of wealthier nations think poor people should take advantage of the opportunities that already exist in their economies, whereas citizens of poor nations believe that government should be more aggressive in providing support.
This does not mean wealthier nations are uncaring toward citizens in need, but it does suggest that they sometimes view poverty as the fault of the poor.  In the United States, these opinions reflect the importance of equality of opportunity as a basic social value, meaning that all individuals regardless of race, gender, or circumstance have the same opportunity to participate in politics, self-government, and the economy.  Most Americans want to help the less fortunate, but only when they are truly needy, not when they fail because they will not help themselves.

What are some advantages and disadvantages of having the government provide services for the poor?  Where do you stand on this issue?

Right to Die Discussion Board

Many Americans suffer great pain as they struggle with cancer and other diseases in the last few months of life.  Although modern medicine offers a number of options for easing the pain through hospice and drug therapies, some citizens would prefer to end their lives on their own schedule through what was once mislabeled as "assisted suicide"
This term often creates images of euthanasia by raising the specter of doctors and government making the decision about when a terminally ill patient should be given the drugs to die.  In recent years, however, the term has been replaced by the concept of "end-of-life-choice".  Drive by the "death with dignity" movement, which is led by a public interest group called "Compassion and Choice" (www.compassionandchoice.org), the campaign has won voter approval in Oregon, Washington, Montana, and Hawaii.  Under current law in these states, patients, not doctors, are given the option of ending their own lives through drugs that east them into a life-ending coma or deep sleep, leading to death within minutes. 
These states require at least two doctors to certify that a patient has only six months or less to live.  With this certification in hand, the doctors are allowed to give the patient a prescription for the life-ending drugs.  Having decided to end his/her life, the patient is asked two questions before taking the drugs: 1) Do you wish to end your life, and 2) Are you able to administer the drugs by your own hand?  If the patient answers yes to both questions, he or she is given the drugs to act.  Some patients decide to take the drugs, while others do not.

What do you think?  Should all states give their citizens the right to end their own lives?

Political Typology Discussion Assignment

Hi there folks,
Below you should make a brief comment on the results that you received from the Political Typology quiz.
You must indicate your party affiliation and whether or not you agree.  

Remember that all discussions should remain respectful and appropriate, however you may debate back and forth if you like.

I will be checking this blog for your discussion post, so make sure that I can tell who you are (put your name on it, OR include your real name in your username) so you can get points.  I will check this on the weekend of Aug 24th/25th.  If you have not done your post by Sunday August 25th, you will not receive credit. 

There is no makeup for this assignment.