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 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.         

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.