Should the Governement Evolve with the People?

In a blog written by Ashley, she tries to take a stab at trying to answer the following question: Is it possible for the people of the United States to be equally represented? She begins her blog by stating an important fact. She states, “the nation and the people have changed and it is time the government makes changes to follow and support the people it is governing, not the Architects from its past.” I couldn’t agree more. We can all agree that overtime America has evolved tremendously. Whether this be the diversity of the people, the advanced technology and infrastructure, etc. With the diversity of the people in America, is everyone equally represented? Unfortunately not, and Ashley makes that point quite clear. She brings up the idea of improving the Electoral College. She mentions, “Hear the majority of the public’s opinion and make decisions based off of solely what is best for the good of the majority of the nation, what the majority of the people want and need.” But isn’t that what a trustee is required to do originally? I feel like no matter what we do we can never uncover the real agenda of any politician. We just never really know the real intentions that someone has, we are forced to believe whatever they want us to hear. She then brings up an even greater idea which is the elimination of party systems. Which I think is incredibly intelligent. Why aren’t these trustees doing their jobs or doing what’s best for the people? The writer answers, “People get too caught up in Party Systems they neglect the issues and vote based off of commitment to the Party. Just like Tammy’s outdated idea of sticking by someone who may not really deserve it, the Party participants in this country need to start voting based off what is best for the country and not what the Party’s outdated values or alliances are.” It’s quite simple. Our government is corrupt because the very people that we as citizens are supposed to trust are themselves corrupt. So, will there ever be a solution? This blog was very thoughtfully written and gives clear insight on possible solutions without being biased or emotional. She does a great job at elaborating her point, asking questions, and making very thoughtful comparisons.

DNC is to blame!

The polls were wrong and the DNC is to blame if you were in favor of a democracy. The masses seemed to be overwhelmingly democratic during the run for president, and the polls gave false hope of clear victory. The silent majority however only speaks up now and there is an overwhelming stir in the masses as America is now labeled as a half racist Democratic-Republic. The DNC is to blame for the current disastrous outcome of the election as Clinton did not serve to appeal to states that would have swayed in favor of democrats and the election entirely had Bernie been in her place.

The DNC nominee, Clinton, was the cause of shifting of the majority public to a perceived stronger candidate, Trump. Bernie Sanders was the change that America had hoped for, and he was the believer of peace and equality. Had Bernie been elected, he would have won the popular vote as was perceived in the charts conducted during the primaries.

The decision making of the DNC and RNC can shift the outcome of an election, and so it did. In the majority opinion of democrats, the DNC selected the lesser fit candidate as the nominee. Bernie Sanders was a man of the people and spoke for the people, and had a credible history with minorities and repressed groups of society. Hillary Clinton on the other hands, and it goes without saying that the moment she was to be elected there would be numerous big corporate companies having their private agendas fulfilled.

The electoral college charts that perceived Trump had no chance of winning the election were wrong. However, if we take into account the fact that they might’ve been altered when Hillary was chosen as the primary nominee for the DNC, this is a certain reason for the drastic turn in choice of who to vote for. It is of no surprise this election was a decision between two evils, but we can clearly acknowledge, had Bernie been chosen as the nominee for the DNC the electoral college votes would have drastically drifted in his favor.

It is of complete surprise why the DNC would harm their chance of victory by allowing Hillary instead of Bernie Sanders to take a shot at presidency. Sanders already raised victory over the Secretary and had won in multiple primaries, states like Indiana, Oklahoma, Michigan, Wisconsin, and West Virginia. Bernie’s clear victory had been stopped however, as even the DNC attorneys have stated that the democratic party is corrupt and that those that even funded Bernie’s political campaign were subject and knew from the start, which is reason the DNC cannot be sued.

In party where there is a favorable candidate from the start, it is clear to perceive a corrupt government. This concept of favoritism excludes any chance for actual change, but instead, emphasizes on the fact that those who are in charge, have the ability of shaping our society and our nation’s future, simply to benefit their own personal agendas.