Wednesday, December 11, 2013
Ron Wyden
Biography
Ron Wyden was born in 1949 to Edith and Peter Wyden in Wichita Kansas. A son of jewish parents who had fled Nazi Germany, Ron spent his days in Palo Alto California, playing for his high school basketball team. After high school, Wyden went to the University of California, Santa Barbra, before transferring to Stanford. Wyden continued on to receive his Juris Doctor degree from the University of Oregon school of law in 1974. In 1980, Wyden ran for the House of Representatives, defeating his opponent, Darrel Conger, with 71% majority vote, an amazing feat considering Wyden was only 31 at the time.
Committees
Committee on the Budget
Committee on Finance
Subcommittee on Energy, Natural Resources, and Infrastructure
Subcommittee on Taxation and IRS Oversight
Subcommittee on International Trade, Customs, and Global Competitiveness (Chairman)
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources (Chairman)
As Chairman, Senator Wyden is an ex-office member on all subcommittees.
Select Committee on Intelligence
Special Committee on Aging
Joint Committee On Taxation
Position
Environment
Senator Wyden has done many things to help conserve the natural beauty of Oregon. From protecting old growth forests, to reforming federal government land management practices. Wyden has also added hundreds of miles of Oregon rivers to the Wild and Scenic Rivers system. He suggests that oil and coal companies should pay there fare share for the damage they do to the environment. Wyden does this by imposing royalties on major companies that may be underpaying taxpayers.
Technology
Wyden is also an advocate for free and open Internet. He has passed several acts to ensure no one can setup online "Tollbooths" or be held responsible for user-generated content. With this, Wyden has paved a road for major companies like YouTube and Face book over the past 10 years. Voted "The 50 Most Important People on the Web" by PC World, Wyden is truly making his mark on the world of technology, today.
Questions for the Senator? A: What advice do you give a student thinking about being in politics?
B: What allows you to stay on the leading edge of technology, often stopping problems before they occur?
C: What are your feelings towards the use of domestic drones by companies such as Amazon( Amazon Prime Air)?
Essay 6
A: Ones age and education have a lot to do with how one votes, if they even vote at all. As people grow older, politics become more and more important to them. When before they might have been too busy, or maybe just didn't care enough to vote; now, they suddenly find themselves with much more time on their hands and are much more opinionated. At a young age, we are influenced by our parents in the way in which we vote. As we grow older we become more and more independent. Although we normally stay on the same side as our parents, this isn't always the case. In addition to age, education plays a huge role is your likeliness to vote. On average, the more educated the person is, the more likely they are to vote. This is because educated people tend to pay more attention to politics, and are more concerned with the outcomes of elections. This isn't to say that an uneducated person doesn't care at all, they are just less likely to know the consequences of their decision.
B: The requirement to register before you vote has been one major federal requirement that has decreased voter turnout. When it comes to voting, many Americans are just plane lazy. They don't want to have to stand in line and fill out pages of documents just to vote. In this way, requiring voters to register has decreased voter turn out. Some states now offer registering while voting. This means you no longer have to submit a separate form just to vote. This technique has raised the voter turnout in select areas.
C: Media is the most influential linkage institution in the 21st century. Through media is how most Americans find out about the presidential nominees, what they stand for, and who's winning. Without the media, many americans would be left in the dark. The fact of the matter is that if media didn't exist, our already minuscule voter turnout would be almost inexistent. The media also completes the circle by not only supplying information from candidates to citizens, but also from citizens to candidates. This creates a more tailored government; by the people, for the people. The media also plays a part in how we vote. Because of recent advancements, we can now vote from thousands of miles away from the capitol. This allows anyone to vote, not just people who live in Washington D.C.
B: The requirement to register before you vote has been one major federal requirement that has decreased voter turnout. When it comes to voting, many Americans are just plane lazy. They don't want to have to stand in line and fill out pages of documents just to vote. In this way, requiring voters to register has decreased voter turn out. Some states now offer registering while voting. This means you no longer have to submit a separate form just to vote. This technique has raised the voter turnout in select areas.
C: Media is the most influential linkage institution in the 21st century. Through media is how most Americans find out about the presidential nominees, what they stand for, and who's winning. Without the media, many americans would be left in the dark. The fact of the matter is that if media didn't exist, our already minuscule voter turnout would be almost inexistent. The media also completes the circle by not only supplying information from candidates to citizens, but also from citizens to candidates. This creates a more tailored government; by the people, for the people. The media also plays a part in how we vote. Because of recent advancements, we can now vote from thousands of miles away from the capitol. This allows anyone to vote, not just people who live in Washington D.C.
Essay 5
Part A: Different intrest groups use various methods for getting what they want. Through litigation; grassroots lobbying, and campaign contributions, intrest groups will do whatever it take to pass a bill or get a certain official elected.
Litigation is an interest groups way of getting what they want. They use the law as there secret weapon. Sometimes, they use portions of various laws to further their cause, while other times they use it as a threat against their opponents. In the 1940s and 1950s, the NAACP sued several segregated school districts. This ended in the Brown v Board of Education decision in 1954. Apart from this particular example, many other special intrest groups used litigation to get what they wanted.
Yet another method is through campaign contributions. This method is faster than grassroots lobbying or litigation, but equally as effective. When a special interest group donates to a certain official, they are in a sense, buying there way into the campaign. When they want something passed or not, they can play the "I donated lots of money to your campaign" card. This forces the leader to make influenced decisions in fear of losing funding. This form of "bribery" is also illegal to some extent. As the federal government wants all of its elected officials to be there own person rather than puppets of major corporations.
Grassroots lobbying is the final way intrest groups. This technique only works on certain issues that the majority of people are concerned about. It does not work on issues that are too complicated for the majority to understand, or on issues that few people care about. Grassroots lobbying is a face to face form of lobbying. Special interest groups send out "foot soldiers" to spread the word and make more people vote. When it comes to the time where the decision is to be made, the pressure of the masses force a decision.
Part B: The American Medical Association uses campaign contributions as the primary way to get what they want. With a huge number of members and tons of access to money, this way just makes the most sense. Using Grassroots lobbying takes too much time and effort. For each item the AMA wants passed, they would have to get too many members in order for it to work. The American Medical Association doesn't prefer to use litigation, because they want to be on peoples good side, and suing is not the way to do that.
Litigation is an interest groups way of getting what they want. They use the law as there secret weapon. Sometimes, they use portions of various laws to further their cause, while other times they use it as a threat against their opponents. In the 1940s and 1950s, the NAACP sued several segregated school districts. This ended in the Brown v Board of Education decision in 1954. Apart from this particular example, many other special intrest groups used litigation to get what they wanted.
Yet another method is through campaign contributions. This method is faster than grassroots lobbying or litigation, but equally as effective. When a special interest group donates to a certain official, they are in a sense, buying there way into the campaign. When they want something passed or not, they can play the "I donated lots of money to your campaign" card. This forces the leader to make influenced decisions in fear of losing funding. This form of "bribery" is also illegal to some extent. As the federal government wants all of its elected officials to be there own person rather than puppets of major corporations.
Grassroots lobbying is the final way intrest groups. This technique only works on certain issues that the majority of people are concerned about. It does not work on issues that are too complicated for the majority to understand, or on issues that few people care about. Grassroots lobbying is a face to face form of lobbying. Special interest groups send out "foot soldiers" to spread the word and make more people vote. When it comes to the time where the decision is to be made, the pressure of the masses force a decision.
Part B: The American Medical Association uses campaign contributions as the primary way to get what they want. With a huge number of members and tons of access to money, this way just makes the most sense. Using Grassroots lobbying takes too much time and effort. For each item the AMA wants passed, they would have to get too many members in order for it to work. The American Medical Association doesn't prefer to use litigation, because they want to be on peoples good side, and suing is not the way to do that.
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
Philippine Disaster Relief
Part 1: The money raised for the foreign aid of the Philippines, should be used to provide the people with basic needs everybody needs to survive. Those basic needs are things such as clean drinking water, healthy and wholesome food, temporary shelter, and medical care. With almost 4 million residents displaced from there homes, help is needed immediately. The longer the people go without help, the higher the possibility of acquiring a disease. As the disease rate goes up, casualties jump tremendously.
Part 2: Charities are the most effective way to provide relief in situations such as this. When a natural disaster hits, many people want to help, but few know how. Charities provide venus for people to donate their time, money, or goods. After all the goods are gathered and collected by volunteers, they are shipped off to areas in the most need. By a charity donating through the collection of small contributions, they are able to buy thousands of bottles of water, for example, rather than a few at a time. The one major downside to charities is, despite all the good they do, most of the money goes back into the charity to pay full time employees and to pay for facilities. The remaining money, goes to the charity. Despite this downfall, donating to a charity for disaster relief is one of the most effective ways to help those in need.
Part 3: UNICEF is "There For The Philippines." Being one of the biggest relief charities for the Philippines, UNICEF vows to stay after everyone else has gone. Being such a big charity, they can give unparalleled amounts of supplies to the victims in the Philippines. UNICEF is a main supporter of children, providing clean drinking water; specialized medicine, and basic medical kits, and protection for kids againest traffickers. Celebrity backers like singer Rihanna and MLB athlete Robinson Cano, not only donate a lot of money themselves, but also bring additional donations, after their fans find out they donated to UNICEF. Although the biggest, UNICEF only donates $.14 of every dollar. Still, with so much money coming in per month, this is still a considerable amount of money being donated.
Part 4: My invention would be a disaster relief 72 hour pack. Even with todays modern technology, many survivors of disasters still have to wait days for help to arrive, and by that time, it could be to late. My pack would be handed out to countries most prone to natural disasters. the pack would be rather small so users could carry it with them when ever they need it. Inside, a "LifeStraw" water filter would provide cleaning drinking water from and water source. A small emergency medical kit would contain bandages, medication, and a few other much needed medical supplies. In addition, food rations would be included in small bags. This food would be similar to food used in the military, and would never expire or go bad. Finally, a small light weight tarp and rope would be included. This could be used to make a shelter, gather goods, carry around personal belongings, or anything else the user could think of. Although not a permeant solution, my 72 hour pack would help survivors to survive the few days they need to before help arrives.
Part 2: Charities are the most effective way to provide relief in situations such as this. When a natural disaster hits, many people want to help, but few know how. Charities provide venus for people to donate their time, money, or goods. After all the goods are gathered and collected by volunteers, they are shipped off to areas in the most need. By a charity donating through the collection of small contributions, they are able to buy thousands of bottles of water, for example, rather than a few at a time. The one major downside to charities is, despite all the good they do, most of the money goes back into the charity to pay full time employees and to pay for facilities. The remaining money, goes to the charity. Despite this downfall, donating to a charity for disaster relief is one of the most effective ways to help those in need.
Part 3: UNICEF is "There For The Philippines." Being one of the biggest relief charities for the Philippines, UNICEF vows to stay after everyone else has gone. Being such a big charity, they can give unparalleled amounts of supplies to the victims in the Philippines. UNICEF is a main supporter of children, providing clean drinking water; specialized medicine, and basic medical kits, and protection for kids againest traffickers. Celebrity backers like singer Rihanna and MLB athlete Robinson Cano, not only donate a lot of money themselves, but also bring additional donations, after their fans find out they donated to UNICEF. Although the biggest, UNICEF only donates $.14 of every dollar. Still, with so much money coming in per month, this is still a considerable amount of money being donated.
Part 4: My invention would be a disaster relief 72 hour pack. Even with todays modern technology, many survivors of disasters still have to wait days for help to arrive, and by that time, it could be to late. My pack would be handed out to countries most prone to natural disasters. the pack would be rather small so users could carry it with them when ever they need it. Inside, a "LifeStraw" water filter would provide cleaning drinking water from and water source. A small emergency medical kit would contain bandages, medication, and a few other much needed medical supplies. In addition, food rations would be included in small bags. This food would be similar to food used in the military, and would never expire or go bad. Finally, a small light weight tarp and rope would be included. This could be used to make a shelter, gather goods, carry around personal belongings, or anything else the user could think of. Although not a permeant solution, my 72 hour pack would help survivors to survive the few days they need to before help arrives.
Friday, November 8, 2013
The White House Plumbers
The Watergate scandal was one of the biggest scandals of all time, that ultimately ended in the resignation of President Nixon on August 9, 1974. The scandal started as an attempt to cover up the break-in at the Democratic National Committee at the Watergate complex. Many people were involved in the scandal and when it was all over, 43 of them were incarcerated. One such group was the White House Plumbers. Often just called "The Plumbers" this elite special investigations unit focused on keeping classified information from being leaked. While working for the Nixon administration many of there members branched out and did illegal activities, including being involved with The Watergate break-in and Watergate Scandal.
The White House Plumbers were not plumbers at all, infact they had absolutly nothing to do with the plumbing of the White House. Instead, there main goal was to prevent the leaking of information outside the White House's walls. G. Gordon Liddy, John Paisley (a member of the CIA), John Erlichman and E. Howard Hunt, were all members of the White House Plumbers . This group of men were assigned by President Nixon to complete various tasks. One of there first jobs, was the burglary of the office of Daniel Ellsberg's Los Angeles psychiatrist, Lewis J. Fielding, in an effort to uncover evidence to discredit Ellsberg, who had leaked the Pentagon Papers. The plumbers broke into the office late at night, retrieving the documents they needed. They left pills on the ground in the office to make it appear that drugs were the reason for their visit. This mission was unsuccessful and also highly illegal. President Nixon was not allowed to order an illegal search and sesiure, but he did so anyway. Daniel Ellsberg arrived at his office the next morning and saw the mess left behind. He reported the file the plumbers had been looking for had been gone through, but investigators were unsure of who and why, so no one was charged.
The Committee for Re-electing the President (CRP) was formed and several of the White House Plumbers joined it. Their job was to get money for the presidents re-election. They did this through manipulations and money laundering through Mexico. They also participated in Wiretaps, burglaries, and intercepted mail. One of the CRP's biggest jobs was breaking into the Democratic National Committee at the Watergate Complex. They broke in to Watergate to investigate a claim that, "The Cuban government was supplying funds to the Democratic Party." They stole documents and broke into a locked section of the building. They were later arrested and charged for the many crimes they had committed. This was known as the Watergate Scandal. Ultimately, these scandals ended in President Nixon's resignation from office in 1974.
Sources:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/08/nixon-gold-standard-gamble-interrupting-bonanza/41278/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_burglary
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Plumbers
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Watergate
http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/Fall06/Weiner/pages/People/plumbers.htm
The White House Plumbers were not plumbers at all, infact they had absolutly nothing to do with the plumbing of the White House. Instead, there main goal was to prevent the leaking of information outside the White House's walls. G. Gordon Liddy, John Paisley (a member of the CIA), John Erlichman and E. Howard Hunt, were all members of the White House Plumbers . This group of men were assigned by President Nixon to complete various tasks. One of there first jobs, was the burglary of the office of Daniel Ellsberg's Los Angeles psychiatrist, Lewis J. Fielding, in an effort to uncover evidence to discredit Ellsberg, who had leaked the Pentagon Papers. The plumbers broke into the office late at night, retrieving the documents they needed. They left pills on the ground in the office to make it appear that drugs were the reason for their visit. This mission was unsuccessful and also highly illegal. President Nixon was not allowed to order an illegal search and sesiure, but he did so anyway. Daniel Ellsberg arrived at his office the next morning and saw the mess left behind. He reported the file the plumbers had been looking for had been gone through, but investigators were unsure of who and why, so no one was charged.
| Daniel Ellsberg |
Sources:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/08/nixon-gold-standard-gamble-interrupting-bonanza/41278/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_burglary
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Plumbers
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Watergate
http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/Fall06/Weiner/pages/People/plumbers.htm
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
The House of Representatives was originally most closely tied to its citizens, in that this branch was the only branch in which its citizens could vote for the house leaders they wanted. When the majority could pick the leaders they wanted, they usually chose leaders that supported programs they supported and believed the same way they believed. This in turn created a stronger bond between the representatives and their supporters.
The Constitution helped to limit majority rule by only allowing one of the three branches of government to be affected by majority vote. This, with checks and balances, prevented one powerful group from taking over the government, but also limited what the government could do. The constitution did not allow states to do a number of things, such as regulating commerce or coining money, no matter how the majority voted.
When primary elections were created, the rich and powerful no longer had total control. Instead the power shifted to the people. In addition, leaders where no longer allowed to choose the candidates, and the majority had the power. They could choose representatives that suited there needs and wants, making more people satisfied with the results of the election. Meanwhile, the Seventeenth Amendment was created. This amendment gave the majority of each state the power to pick two representatives. These representatives then represented that particular states wants or needs, facing off against other state representatives trying to get their states wants and needs across.
There are many ways to participate in the political process without actually voting. One way is to run for office yourself. This way, although hard to do, allows you to better represent your party and its needs. You can also get more done by fighting to get the issues you want passed, passed. A much easier way, however not as civilized, is to be a part of a public demonstration. Thousands of people a year fill the city streets to get what they want. They might hold up signs, participate in chants, or even occupy a place normally restricted to solicitors(Occupy WallStreet). Another benefit to public demonstration is the unparalleled amount of press you get for the public demonstration. This method is quick and effective most of the time, however it is also very hard to plan and not very efficient.
The Constitution has been around since 1787, and has shaped the United States into the great country it is today. One of the ways the constitution has remained both current and relevant, is by remaining flexible. The framers originally knew that the world as it was back then was not the way it was always going to be. Because of this, they made the constitution flexible enough to be changed based on what current times called for, however, the framers didn't want one strong leader to be able to change it to suit their needs. To do this, they created two methods for changing the constitution, formal and informal.
There are two formal methods to changing the constitution. The first way is for a bill to pass both houses of legislature, by two thirds vote majority. After it passes, it then moves on to the states to see if they will pass the bill, thus making it a new amendment. This method can take a very long time, but because of what happened during the passing of amendment 27, has been limited to 7 years. This method of creating an amendment is the most common. The second formal method of creating an amendment is by getting two-thirds of the legislatures of the states and for that convention to propose one or more amendments. After this, the amendment is sent to the states to be approved. To pass at the state level, it must get a three-fourths vote. Although this is a formal method, it is one that has never been used.
There are also much more common, informal, methods of changing the constitution. These two informal methods of changing the constitution don't actually changing the writing of the constitution, rather they change the interpretation of the different amendments. The first way is when circumstances change. For example, in extension of vote, the amount of people that can vote now is much higher than the amount of people that used to be able to vote. Before, only rich, white, landowners could vote. Now, anyone over the age of 18 can vote as long as they are an U.S. citizen. This changing in culture required the constitution to adapt, and it did. The second way the constitution is open to interpretation is through the Judiciary. The Judiciary has more power than most people realize, as they are the ones who actually in force the laws. Many years ago, it was perfectly acceptable to require that married couples do not use contraception or that blacks and white do not marry. In present day, these things are both seen as acceptable, thus the judiciary doesn't in force them. Because of this the constitution can stay relevant and adapt to change, and that is what has kept it a stable of our government for so many years.
The Constitution helped to limit majority rule by only allowing one of the three branches of government to be affected by majority vote. This, with checks and balances, prevented one powerful group from taking over the government, but also limited what the government could do. The constitution did not allow states to do a number of things, such as regulating commerce or coining money, no matter how the majority voted.
When primary elections were created, the rich and powerful no longer had total control. Instead the power shifted to the people. In addition, leaders where no longer allowed to choose the candidates, and the majority had the power. They could choose representatives that suited there needs and wants, making more people satisfied with the results of the election. Meanwhile, the Seventeenth Amendment was created. This amendment gave the majority of each state the power to pick two representatives. These representatives then represented that particular states wants or needs, facing off against other state representatives trying to get their states wants and needs across.
There are many ways to participate in the political process without actually voting. One way is to run for office yourself. This way, although hard to do, allows you to better represent your party and its needs. You can also get more done by fighting to get the issues you want passed, passed. A much easier way, however not as civilized, is to be a part of a public demonstration. Thousands of people a year fill the city streets to get what they want. They might hold up signs, participate in chants, or even occupy a place normally restricted to solicitors(Occupy WallStreet). Another benefit to public demonstration is the unparalleled amount of press you get for the public demonstration. This method is quick and effective most of the time, however it is also very hard to plan and not very efficient.
The Constitution has been around since 1787, and has shaped the United States into the great country it is today. One of the ways the constitution has remained both current and relevant, is by remaining flexible. The framers originally knew that the world as it was back then was not the way it was always going to be. Because of this, they made the constitution flexible enough to be changed based on what current times called for, however, the framers didn't want one strong leader to be able to change it to suit their needs. To do this, they created two methods for changing the constitution, formal and informal.
There are two formal methods to changing the constitution. The first way is for a bill to pass both houses of legislature, by two thirds vote majority. After it passes, it then moves on to the states to see if they will pass the bill, thus making it a new amendment. This method can take a very long time, but because of what happened during the passing of amendment 27, has been limited to 7 years. This method of creating an amendment is the most common. The second formal method of creating an amendment is by getting two-thirds of the legislatures of the states and for that convention to propose one or more amendments. After this, the amendment is sent to the states to be approved. To pass at the state level, it must get a three-fourths vote. Although this is a formal method, it is one that has never been used.
There are also much more common, informal, methods of changing the constitution. These two informal methods of changing the constitution don't actually changing the writing of the constitution, rather they change the interpretation of the different amendments. The first way is when circumstances change. For example, in extension of vote, the amount of people that can vote now is much higher than the amount of people that used to be able to vote. Before, only rich, white, landowners could vote. Now, anyone over the age of 18 can vote as long as they are an U.S. citizen. This changing in culture required the constitution to adapt, and it did. The second way the constitution is open to interpretation is through the Judiciary. The Judiciary has more power than most people realize, as they are the ones who actually in force the laws. Many years ago, it was perfectly acceptable to require that married couples do not use contraception or that blacks and white do not marry. In present day, these things are both seen as acceptable, thus the judiciary doesn't in force them. Because of this the constitution can stay relevant and adapt to change, and that is what has kept it a stable of our government for so many years.
Sunday, October 27, 2013
The New American Center
Recently we took a quiz to see whether or not the side we thought we were on (Republican or Democrat) was the side that we were actually on based on our answers to the questions asked in the quiz. I found myself to be in the center, however I always thought of myself as a Republican. I didn’t necessarily chose to be a republican, nor did I actually know what values Republicans hold, rather my parents are Republicans thus making me one. I was surprised to find that I wasn’t the right wing Republican I thought I was, holding many values of that of a democrat. In 2012 during the presidential campaign, I wasn’t able to vote, but that didn’t bother me because despite my belief that I was a republican, I didn’t want Mitt Romney to win. Granted I wasn’t too excited about Barack Obama either, this gave an instant where I would be in the middle of the range. One of the questions asked in the questionnaire was whether or not I thought all registered voters should show photo ID before they could cast a vote. I was part of the 58% that strongly supported this idea. I believe that If you want to vote, you should be able to prove that you are an american citizen. Its simple, If you are an american you should be able to control the american political system, and if you're not, then you shouldn't be able to sway the vote. Another question asked was about the requirement of background checks before purchasing a gun. Although my family owns firearms, I was part of the center group that believed that a background check should be mandatory. I don’t believe this is violating our 2nd amendment as it still grants the right to bear arms, however helps keep criminals from purchasing guns. As far as health care is concerned, I was part of the majority that believed the government should provide help but to only those who really need it. As for the rest of the questions, I was pretty much with the majority in the center. Things like abortion; gay marriage, taxes, and pollution, were all categories in which I agreed with the overwhelming majority of central voters. I was surprised to learn that I am in the New American Center, but I'm ok with that.
Thursday, October 17, 2013
Are public opinion polls a benefit or a curse to American politics? What influence do they have on campaigns? On governing? What do critics point to as the key weaknesses of public opinion polls? Do you agree? Explain?
Public opinion polls at their root are a very good thing. They allow a small percent of the population to ask important questions to a large percent of our population. Unfortunately, over time public opinion polls have become an annoyance to the general public, and at the same time transformed into a inaccurate method of finding other peoples opinions. The problem is that most people don't take the time to fill out these polls, often throwing them away and disregarding them. The people that do fill them out only make up a small percent of the U.S., causing a skewed and inaccurate representation of the nation as a whole. Furthermore, the people giving out these surveys and questionnaires actually believe the results they got were accurate and trying to fix policies, that in most peoples eyes, weren't broken. This creates a lot of laws and reforms that don't need to dealt with, wasting the governments time. The key problem with Public opinion polls is that they are supposed to be filled out by the "public" as a whole, and if only a few hundred thousand people are actually filling them out, they are not an accurate representation on the United States wants and needs.
Public opinion polls at their root are a very good thing. They allow a small percent of the population to ask important questions to a large percent of our population. Unfortunately, over time public opinion polls have become an annoyance to the general public, and at the same time transformed into a inaccurate method of finding other peoples opinions. The problem is that most people don't take the time to fill out these polls, often throwing them away and disregarding them. The people that do fill them out only make up a small percent of the U.S., causing a skewed and inaccurate representation of the nation as a whole. Furthermore, the people giving out these surveys and questionnaires actually believe the results they got were accurate and trying to fix policies, that in most peoples eyes, weren't broken. This creates a lot of laws and reforms that don't need to dealt with, wasting the governments time. The key problem with Public opinion polls is that they are supposed to be filled out by the "public" as a whole, and if only a few hundred thousand people are actually filling them out, they are not an accurate representation on the United States wants and needs.
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)