Winning an election in a "democrazy"

Today’s political world is not so focused on reflecting the majority of voters as it is pleasing them. Campaigns now ride on slogans instead of goals, and he who assembles the most of the masses wins, regardless of integrity. The stronger the campaign, the stronger the candidate, and the stronger the votes are which he receives.
The majority of campaigns rely on massive donations through soft money which are less regulated and allow special interest groups and political action committees to influence who has the resources and thus who has the power. This is not always the case, as seen in the 2008 Presidential Election where Barack Obama received an astronomical amount of donations via hard money from private citizens. With this money, ads can be funded, as well as workers on the campaign.
Another major factor to consider is whether or not the media wants one candidate to win. Media bias can swing both ways depending on where in the nation it lies and what source is delivering. A democrat running in Texas may find it rather difficult to win votes when the media swings right, be it for personal interest or to meet the interest of the public. Being in a two party system doesn’t leave much room for one to take a middle ground, so even if one must bite the bullet, one of two parties will almost always be the better choice over an independent campaign.
Yet all of this comes down to who comes out on Election Day and casts their ballots. Low voter turnout has been criticized as in issue in past years, and it has been claimed to be a sign of failing democracy. However, voter turnout in presidential elections tends to hover around 50%, only sinking below such numbers in 1996, and in 2008, we had the highest turnout since 1968, the year of the classic brawl between Richard “Don’t call me Dick” Nixon and Hubert “How do you like me now?” Humphrey.

- Michael "Kash Monkey" Lindh

Civil Liberties Test

It’s often a difficult decision between civil liberties and protection in which we need a Supreme Court ruling on the matter. One of the more significant cases on this matter would be Near v. Minnesota in which the right to write stories, even if incriminating, was protected. This case supported the right to expose truth in a manner which does not harm the security of the nation, protecting the 1st amendment rights of freedom of speech. The liberty was deemed more valuable than the protection. In another, more controversial case (Texas v. Johnson,) a man burned an American flag in political protest, and was arrested. Again, the 1st amendment rights of speech were protected. The danger to the public was deemed negligible, as no violence was being condoned, and only political expressed speech was given. Yet again, the civil liberties of Americans won. In regards to protecting us from oppressive government and police, the Mapp v. Ohio case intended on protecting the 4th amendment rights of no search and seizure without a warrant, and thanks to the exclusionary rule, it did. These rights do not, however, tend to extend to students in education. In New Jersey v T.L.O., a young girl was found smoking, and her bag was searched, and drug paraphernalia was found. This was ruled to not be in violation of her 4th amendment rights which hold students to a higher standard and needing only reasonable suspicion over probable cause for a search. For the students, at least, protection finally wins. There is a scenario in which both sides win. In Miranda v. Arizona, the 5th amendment is questioned as to whether it should include the right to know one’s rights as an accused criminal. As Miranda was the winning side, we are now forced to be read the Miranda Rights during an arrest. This ensures both our 5th amendment rights as well as protects us from abuse by the law and authority. Overall, when protections and freedoms collide, the winner tends to be freedoms, except in the case of students. We tend to wish to protect the youth more than the general public, which often comes across misconstrued as the desire to squash the rights of a usually rebellious natured age-group.

- Michael "Kash Moneys" Lindh