Voter Participation
Voter participation is often reflected by the candidates, the issues, and the economy. There are times however, that voter participation is reflected by a “What’s in it for me?” attitude. For example; in the 2008 presidential election, Barack Obama, running for his second term, promised free cell phones, free welfare, and again…a fundamental change in America. After spending more than $1 billion in his campaign, he was able to clinch his re-election.
This brings to question the legitimacy of his campaign (or election if you will). Did Obama actually bribe his way back into the oval office? Or, was it simple salesmanship? One could argue that it was both. Giving away anything for the promise of a vote is, in effect, bribery. If this isn’t strong enough argument, consider that the hate group – Black Panthers, stood at election terminals across the country with loaded semi-automatic rifles. While this was intimidating for some, others had to be turned away by a show of force.
Without …show more content…
This then, brings up another question. Is there a way to limit the amount of special interest donations in proportion to the amount of donations a person or PAC (Political Action Committee) can receive and/or spend with regards to the election process of a presidential candidate? Every state has laws which do this for the lower houses of government up to and including a governor, but why not the president? Perhaps this is a question for another time. In the meantime, disenfranchised eligible voters are facing the possibility of new “voter I.D. laws”. Many would argue that this is a violation of privacy. Yet, with so much voter fraud going on, especially with presidential elections, mandatory identification might not be such a bad idea. It would certainly prevent the dead from voting. It would also prevent illegal immigrants for voting as
Voter participation is often reflected by the candidates, the issues, and the economy. There are times however, that voter participation is reflected by a “What’s in it for me?” attitude. For example; in the 2008 presidential election, Barack Obama, running for his second term, promised free cell phones, free welfare, and again…a fundamental change in America. After spending more than $1 billion in his campaign, he was able to clinch his re-election.
This brings to question the legitimacy of his campaign (or election if you will). Did Obama actually bribe his way back into the oval office? Or, was it simple salesmanship? One could argue that it was both. Giving away anything for the promise of a vote is, in effect, bribery. If this isn’t strong enough argument, consider that the hate group – Black Panthers, stood at election terminals across the country with loaded semi-automatic rifles. While this was intimidating for some, others had to be turned away by a show of force.
Without …show more content…
This then, brings up another question. Is there a way to limit the amount of special interest donations in proportion to the amount of donations a person or PAC (Political Action Committee) can receive and/or spend with regards to the election process of a presidential candidate? Every state has laws which do this for the lower houses of government up to and including a governor, but why not the president? Perhaps this is a question for another time. In the meantime, disenfranchised eligible voters are facing the possibility of new “voter I.D. laws”. Many would argue that this is a violation of privacy. Yet, with so much voter fraud going on, especially with presidential elections, mandatory identification might not be such a bad idea. It would certainly prevent the dead from voting. It would also prevent illegal immigrants for voting as