In the recent years—United States has shifted to the interest of the few—mainly due to political strength weigh in which can influence government in their favor. The sole existence of Citizen v. United is still in place of the law—which labeled all companies as “persons” and infinite money, will continue to have a large hand of infuriating our politics. The further definition of oligarchy emphasized such notation:
“Rather, they may ascend to positions of power because of military might, economic power, or similar circumstances.”
With the upcoming elections, regardless of which presidential candidate won, the election itself is practically handed down by a few groups of people. When the people go to the polls and voted for their president—they are actually voting the electors, whom they would vote the following candidates to be the next president. To make the matters worse, the electors in 24 states do not have to choose based on the amount of popular vote of their state and chose whoever they want to vote. Is …show more content…
However, does social movements in recent years have the same ability? Yes—with the advancement of technology and the explosive growth of social media—social movements can now have their voice heard across the globe with the flick of their fingertips.
Awareness is now more wide-spread thanks to social media. For example; Black Lives Matter deliberately used this tactic by providing news outlet or even exposed cover-up footage of police brutality onto twitter—leading it to be spread and share literally millions of times. Thus, having a political impact is an understatement. On the other hand, it a double-edge sword. It can be used to impact politically in a negative way—where people can show members of a social movement in a negative light and cause the entirely to lose legitimacy of their
“Rather, they may ascend to positions of power because of military might, economic power, or similar circumstances.”
With the upcoming elections, regardless of which presidential candidate won, the election itself is practically handed down by a few groups of people. When the people go to the polls and voted for their president—they are actually voting the electors, whom they would vote the following candidates to be the next president. To make the matters worse, the electors in 24 states do not have to choose based on the amount of popular vote of their state and chose whoever they want to vote. Is …show more content…
However, does social movements in recent years have the same ability? Yes—with the advancement of technology and the explosive growth of social media—social movements can now have their voice heard across the globe with the flick of their fingertips.
Awareness is now more wide-spread thanks to social media. For example; Black Lives Matter deliberately used this tactic by providing news outlet or even exposed cover-up footage of police brutality onto twitter—leading it to be spread and share literally millions of times. Thus, having a political impact is an understatement. On the other hand, it a double-edge sword. It can be used to impact politically in a negative way—where people can show members of a social movement in a negative light and cause the entirely to lose legitimacy of their