Election Test

A big decision for a politician is to decide to run for a political office. This takes a lot of thought and consideration, mainly because it takes a lot of work for a candidate to be successful. The most important aspect in a campaign, however, is getting money and endorsements from people and PAC (Political Action Committees). These committees are groups which will give money to campaigns usually in the form of advertising, and exist to promote a certain political cause. Most of the money they give to candidates is in a form called soft money. This money usually goes to create advertising which technically does not endorse the candidate, but strongly encourages people to vote for them. This is a very important aspect of gaining support for candidates and essential if they wish to win the election, mainly because there is no limit to how much money they can receive this way. The other way a candidate gains funding is with hard money, which is money given directly to them through donations. The disadvantage to this is that there are limits to how much money can be received. Through both of these methods, a candidate must gain enough support and funding to make themselves appeal more to the voting population.
The entire purpose of getting this funding is to sway voters to want to vote for the candidate. The groups of voters that they target is those who are moderate, and could potentially vote for any candidate. Voters who belong to political parties, which are groups of people who share similar political ideas and seek to elect a candidate who has these ideas, will usually vote for the candidate from their party, so these voters are not targeted as much by the candidate. While the goal of a candidate is to sway the moderates to vote for them, they are competing against the media and what it wants to voters to do. All media has a bias, which means that it will tend to lean either left or right politically, and this bias can affect how people will vote. If moderate voters watch news which is mainly slanted to the left, they may be more likely to vote for the more liberal candidate. Because of this it may be difficult for a candidate to sway all voters opinions, and may only sway the opinions of those who take in media which is biased in favor of them.
This method, I believe, is democratic, but it is not completely fair. There are so many things pulling voters in many different directions, trying to get them to vote for a certain candidate, that you have to wonder if they really are making a fair choice when they vote. This is why I think that low voter turnout is not necessarily bad for America. Voter turnout is how many people show up to vote on election day. The reason I believe that a low turnout is not necessarily bad is because the more people that vote, the more likely it is that a larger number of people are not completely informed about everything. They may have been manipulated to vote for someone, or blindly voting with their parties candidate, or just randomly picking someone. The less voters you have, the better quality each vote is.

Civil Liberties Test

Freedoms are the most important things that we have as Americans. They are the foundation which this country has been built on. Although they are the bedrock of this country, they are times which we sometimes must sacrifice our freedoms in order to be protected. This conflict is a major one, and has evolved through various Supreme Court cases. When this collision of freedoms and protections occur, life is improved for Americans.

The 1st amendment is the most important one; it gives us freedom to say what we desire, although there are some limitations. In the case of Near v. Minnesota, the state of Minnesota believed that Near was going beyond these limitations by publishing stories in a newspaper which linked local officials to gang activity. Near believed that he was perfectly within his 1st amendment rights because the story was true, even if it did hurt the officials’ reputations. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Near, saying that freedom of speech and the press is one of the most important freedoms in America, and is at the heart of the constitution. In this case, freedoms won over protection. The local officials did not need protection from the articles being published, because all the articles were doing was pointing out the officials’ mistakes, and everything in the article was factual. This case set a precedent that articles, or any speech, which are completely true should not be censored.

While the ruling on Near v. Minnesota was in favor of free speech, this was not true in the case of Bethel v. Fraser. In this case Fraser, a student, was giving a speech at an assembly and used a sexual metaphor. The school decided that this was obscene, and they suspended him for it. He then took the case to the Supreme Court. While Fraser believed his speech to be perfectly within his 1st amendment rights (he was not harming anyone with what he was saying) the school thought that his speech was inappropriate and he did not have the right to say what he did. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the school, saying that the school has the right to censor speech which it believes is not consistent with the fundamental values of a public school education, so long as it is not political speech. In this case, protections win over freedoms. The school suspended Fraser because it was trying to protect younger students who may not be ready to be exposed to sexual subjects. Even though Fraser believed that his freedoms were being compromised, ultimately it is the schools duty to protect all of its students from speech which they may not be mature enough to handle.

The 4th amendment is also an important, so that we may be protected from our own government. In the case of Mapp v. Ohio this conflict is seen. Mapp’s house was searched because the police believed a suspect in a recent bombing may have been hiding there. In their search they did not find the suspect, but they did find obscene materials, and Mapp was charged with possession of these. The case was brought to the Supreme Court, and the court ruled that if evidence is found in an illegal search, one that breaks the 4th amendment, any evidence found in this search may not be used in court. This case gave Americans a great deal of protection from their own government. If this case had not set the precedent it did, Americans would have to fear illegal searches of their own property from the government, but with the ruling anything that was found in a search without a warrant would mean nothing.

In the court case of Miranda v. Arizona, they issue of the 5th amendment is addressed. Miranda was accused of kidnapping and rape, and the victim identified him as the perpetrator. He was then interrogated, and signed a confession. Although he confessed, he was not informed that he had a right to an attorney, and that anything he said could be used against him in court. Because he was never informed that he had these rights, his confession was not valid in court. This is another huge protection for the citizens against the government. It allows everyone to be informed of what rights they have, no matter who they are.