The electoral college is an extremely antiquated process in this country. It was created to ease the election process during the founding of this country. When votes needed to be physically carried and counted and the result delivered to the capitol, the electoral college helped speed the process along. In this digital age, however, it no longer provides any benefit. The placement of votes in the hands of representatives does not equally distribute voting power equally among citizens in the best scenario, but in the United States, voting power is wildly disproportionate. In fact, it is possible to win an election in the electoral college with only 22% of the popular votes by targeting the states where votes mean the most and ignoring the states where votes mean the least. This is extremely unlikely, but it really shouldn't even be possible. Eliminating the electoral college is the first step in improving the election process in the United States.
The electoral college is not the only system that must be changed, however. Out democracy elects candidates with a 'first past the post' (FPTP) or 'winner takes all' (WTA) system. Essentially, the system works by giving one vote to every citizen (in theory) and allowing them to distribute this vote as they wish. There are a myriad of problems with this system, but the most obvious flaw is that it will ultimately result in a two-party system with little to no third party interaction. It also establishes a system where the majority of the population voted against the winning candidate. Even in the best case scenario, where there are numerous candidates from numerous parties campaigning, the majority of the population didn't vote for the winner, compared to those that did (for example, if 7 candidates campaign, a winner might only have 16% of the popular vote).
It's clear that the system needs a drastic change. If, rather than the FPTP, an 'alternative vote' or 'mixed-member representation' system was used, the election system would be much more fair and allow for much more progress in the government. Unfortunately, though, such a drastic change would be unlikely to move through the government. Our government doesn't exactly allow for large changes.
Monday, November 25, 2013
Thursday, November 7, 2013
To Be
Of all of Shakespeare’s works, no piece of text is more well known than the soliloquy of Hamlet in act three, scene one. In this monologue, Shakespeare truly put the feeling of depression into words. His profound statements on death have been borrowed time and time again. Hamlet’s thoughts are not only useful when discussing depression, however. This soliloquy represents a more general idea; making a decision is much more difficult when its consequences are not understood.
The central idea of this soliloquy is put forward in the first phrase: “to be, or not to be, that is the question.” Hamlet is attempting to decide whether or not he should commit suicide, and he argues the point just as any might be argued. He expresses his desire to die and immediately counters himself with possible consequences of suicide, and he continues adding sound arguments to both sides.
His treatment of this topic is what allows such broad interpretation of his thoughts. There are several reasons why he feels compelled to commit suicide and several reasons that he feels that he shouldn’t. In the end, he does not have enough reason to act, so he defaults to inaction. This is made obvious when he says, “…enterprises of great pitch and moment / with this regard their currents turn awry / and lose the name of action.” It is very important to understand that he is not actively choosing to remain alive but simply doesn’t have enough reason to act. This theme is focused in his character throughout the play and it is presented through his inability to murder Claudius.
Some might empathize with what Hamlet says about death, but many more could empathize with his situation when applied in a broader context. Hamlet doesn’t have enough reason to act, so he does nothing. He is faced with a choice that he doesn’t fully understand. His situation represents the idea that a choice that is not understood cannot be made.
The central idea of this soliloquy is put forward in the first phrase: “to be, or not to be, that is the question.” Hamlet is attempting to decide whether or not he should commit suicide, and he argues the point just as any might be argued. He expresses his desire to die and immediately counters himself with possible consequences of suicide, and he continues adding sound arguments to both sides.
His treatment of this topic is what allows such broad interpretation of his thoughts. There are several reasons why he feels compelled to commit suicide and several reasons that he feels that he shouldn’t. In the end, he does not have enough reason to act, so he defaults to inaction. This is made obvious when he says, “…enterprises of great pitch and moment / with this regard their currents turn awry / and lose the name of action.” It is very important to understand that he is not actively choosing to remain alive but simply doesn’t have enough reason to act. This theme is focused in his character throughout the play and it is presented through his inability to murder Claudius.
Some might empathize with what Hamlet says about death, but many more could empathize with his situation when applied in a broader context. Hamlet doesn’t have enough reason to act, so he does nothing. He is faced with a choice that he doesn’t fully understand. His situation represents the idea that a choice that is not understood cannot be made.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)