Domestic Elections: Does geography determine the elections more than individual beliefs?

Do politicians make decisions based on the area they represent or their own personal opinion?

This is the question of partisanship. Do we elect officials to represent the majority opinion of their constituency or do we elect them to make decisions that we expect to be best for us even if it's not directly what we agree with?

I personally side with the second option. This is why we are a representative democracy and not a pure democracy. This allows room for error. We are not all political experts. Those who are typically find themselves in some sector of government for part or all of their career.

That aside, once the representatives are in these positions, do they vote based on the overarching well-being of the communities they have an obligation to or do they keep national interests in mind? I think that most support regional interests. This is exactly where geography comes into play. I have never noticed the importance of geographical factors in politics until our discussion last week, but it is certainly a prevalent aspect of voting behavior in government.

We discussed three political cultures in the U.S.: moralistic, individualistic, and traditionalistic. I can't speak as much for the first two viewpoints, which are more based in Northern parts of the U.S. However, I have a lot to say about the "traditionalistic" viewpoint.

First of all, it is shocking. I think of Southern politics as the exact opposite. Our regional politics supposedly reveal that we think elites in society are the only ones who should extensively participate in government and politics. I think that there is fine dividing line that this problem doesn't address. People THINK they have a lot of say in government and that they make a huge difference with little actions. The viewpoint of many politicians rests in meeting the basic needs of the large populations that live rurally and have little education. Then, the people believe that their actions are having an effect, while the government ensures stability.

I do agree that many in the South believe that "most governmental functions should not exist". Once again, this comes from rural education and the simpler, traditional way of living in the South. If the direct purpose cannot be seen in something, then of course there is no need for it to exist! (according to many minds here)

Overall, I think that these trends in state governments do exist to form regional patterns of government behavior, however, it is no wonder why you don't get many college students agreeing that they represent these on a personal basis. College is meant to help us see beyond our own views and stretch our minds to understand opposing viewpoints. Even if moralistic, individualistic, and traditionalistic patterns exist, you are not likely to find them represented in higher education.

Mind Control

Who should vote? ...the question of today's dilemma.

I am not of 100% conviction about my decision, but I lean towards the answer: those who are informed. How this could be tested and determined, I'm not 100% sure. I do like the idea of having to (to some extent) write in names and answers on voting ballots so that one is forced to research more before coming in to give their opinion. 

This might seem harsh to some, but there are two many times where I see clueless people adamant about giving a vote when they don't even know anything about the inherent debate to what is going on. The last time I was standing in downtown, waiting in line three hours to vote, I watched as a woman on the sidewalk brain washed person after person. She told them to voice their opinion: Vote "no" to all of the amendments, because we don't want  changes in our system!

.....Depending on the wording, voting "no" could mean an answer that would be deemed a "yes" to an amendment. No matter what, saying no is still a vote!!! I can't believe this lady had the nerve to stand there and tell people that. I'm not saying that she is one of the clueless people. She was obviously too well informed. Perhaps it conveniently fit her political affiliation or candidate she was supporting to tell everyone to vote "no". The fact that people could legitimately stand there and have a conversation with her appalls me. I would never stand there listening to it. 

Now comes the question of Sunday voting. Is mind control real? Could there be circumstances in which religious or spiritual leaders sway a population a certain way politically for a long period of time and then provide an easy transportation for them to go vote, with that peer pressure and religious/spiritual duty (what is the right thing to do morally?) mentally looking over their shoulder as they fill out the ballot? Yes, religion has influence, but there is no way to divide the line between those who believe in what they are hearing and those who are being pressured. The people themselves might not even know. 

With this said, I think that removing Sunday voting would help this. Yes, it would be very inconvenient for many people, but it would remove the moral pressures of Sunday. Those who have religious influence but more strongly believe in it, will vote the same on all other days of the week. 

Eliminating the Divides: Supranationalism

Deciding what systems should be collectively or individually controlled is a hard assignment indeed. When it comes to dilemmas like these, it's strange how we think we know all the answers when these topics are being debated. Sure, we know when someone makes a comment that completely agrees or disagrees with us. How many times do we sit down and think it out for ourselves though to the exact detail? In the ideal world, how would you have it?

In collectivism vs. individualism, education seems to be one of the more confusing topics. Private vs. public school? Force everyone to take the same classes all across the country when they are the same age? Specialize vocational and academic routes? Do we standardize all lessons within a certain course across the country? Standardized testing? Allow teachers to have flexible teaching methods?

This is my suggestion: In every public school across the country (private schools can still exist), classes will be required to hit certain checkpoints in what they should be teaching. Perhaps some classes will have time to go more in-depth on topics than others. The point is to have a holistic outlook on what is being taught and allow a large amount of flexibility in the class concerning the textbook and how the teacher presents the material (we all have different learning/teaching methods). 

I think standardized testing is quite dangerous, but it is not a topic I am quite as sure of. Teachers spend so much time teaching to accomplish test objectives, rather than teaching for student comprehension. It really defeats the purpose of being educated on these subjects if no student can retain it. However, I can see that it is a case by case issue. Some states and counties need more structure and guarantee as to what their students are taught. Therefore, I suggest giving states the choice to create standardized state tests, mandate that all counties standardize tests, or do neither. Students should not be required to do BOTH state and county exams. It should be one or the other. I also think that this should only be for elementary, middle school, and perhaps, lower high school classes. Tests, such as FCAT (Florida's standardized test), only inhibit students who must concentrate on their mid-terms and exams in later years. 

Students should most certainly NOT be required to take the same courses as other students their age. If this inhibits a student from a small town in competing with students from cities, I would say it's fair. I say this being from a small town. Most likely, if you're forced to keep up with certain classes throughout your school years, your teachers are not as qualified to teach a class full of both more advanced students and lower-level students. Plus, in small schools there is not the opportunity to separate these groups into separate courses. I'm not saying that students should be allowed to take the same class for multiple years, but there should be enough variability created that ensures they keep moving while allowing them to jump back up to higher level courses if they take summer classes, study through dual enrollment or a special program, etc. I wouldn't want students to be tracked a certain way from a younger age when that can change so much throughout teenage years. 

Finally, vocational school in college should exist. I haven't researched the recent decision by the Miami-Dade area to go in this direction, but I believe that it is a good idea to not force intense academic courses upon students who are clearly not going to use them. To me, this is a waste of resources, inconsiderate to students, and a huge inconvenience to teachers who spend all their time trying to teach those that don't want to be taught. 

Ultimately, I think our education system would benefit from being individualized but with certain guarantees in place to ensure progress for all students.