This presidential election is not like that of any other in history and it is bringing about a great controversy surrounding politics. In one of Casey Neistat’s recent videos, he explains how it is natural for an appropriate amount of agreement and opposition in a democracy when voting for a democrat or a republican, but not so much in the current presidential election. Casey makes it clear that he is voting for Clinton, that it is absurd to have an opposition against this decision by voting for Trump, and towards the end of the video, tells his viewers to vote and support her as well. This creates more controversy, as shown in the large comment section, that Casey expected and is aware of.

A democracy is a system of government in which people of all ages, regardless of their race, who are treated equally with equal rights, choose their leaders by voting. I was surprised when watching Casey Neistat’s video because he is specifically telling his viewers to vote for who he wants to be elected. I don’t disagree with the points that he makes, but think it was a very bold choice for him to say the things he said in the video and found it unnecessary for him to state in the video that we need to vote for Clinton, disregarding whatever opinions we may have. The video was expected to have millions of views and he tries to target the young population in our country. On one hand it doesn’t seem fair to have another person decide our vote, for we are suppose to choose our leaders based on what we think in what we call a democracy. On the other hand, it is helpful and informative to understand political issues and how we can assist in sustaining democracy in the country.

I’m going to make the case for non-voting. Before all else, you shouldn’t be voting if you don’t have a grasp on the issues. It can be dangerous for the nation when you blindly cast your ballot. When you don’t know what it is you’re really voting for, bad outcomes can come forward. It’s wrong when people pressure others into voting hoping that they will vote for the same candidate as them.  It’s immoral for people to garner votes by making others feel like they’ve done something wrong. These people feel that those blind votes will do some good as they cancel out the blind votes from the other candidates. And there really are only two candidates who have a shot, so when a new voter comes around, her vote counts for two since she’s deprived the other candidate of her vote.  It’s better for the country to have well-informed citizens than to have those who are uninformed and/or easily manipulated.

Informed non-voters who don’t support any of the candidates are told that they are letting other people choose for them. They’re told that if they don’t vote, they don’t have the right to complain when the results are in. But the basis of that argument is that we all agreed to our system of democracy. We’ve agreed to a system where everyone’s voices will be carried by one candidate or another (which can never be the case) and where the majority gets to decide the future of our country.  And if that’s the case, no one really has the right to “complain”. Non-voters can’t speak about issues because they never took the actions to let their thoughts be heard. Supporters of the losing candidate have to keep their mouths shut because they agreed to uphold the majority vote. And supporters of the winning candidate have to sit in silence as they take the heat for all the dreadful actions coming ahead because of their binding contract, regardless if they felt that they fought for the lesser of two evils. Non-voters, as well as any other citizen, should be able to voice their dissent when things go wrong. Non-voters are just taking the steps to show that they carry no allegiances.

I understand that this is an election unlike any other in recent American history. There are many people voting against candidates out of spite to keep them away from power. For many, the concerns of the election have little to do with policy and are more about preserving good. But those who feel that none of the candidates would be capable of being the president should not be looked down on.

Once I turned eighteen during my senior year in high school, there was already this constant talk and meetings about voting and the importance of it. When they told us to register to vote in that big assembly room, that small thick paper they handed to us seemed so intimidating, especially when they asked for my social security number. (And you know it’s serious when the teachers let you call your mom for access with whatever information you don’t have imprinted in your brain.)

So in my high school government class, my teacher reminded us about why it was important to vote and invited us to discuss as to why or why not we should vote. To be frank, it is not so hard to understand why voting is important or rather, a privilege one should not take for granted. It is so easy to declare that your vote does not matter, and to spread that idea around. Which, of course, only increases the number of votes unaccounted for- which inevitably results in a group of people not being represented in the tally marks. Additionally, we are well aware that there are people back in the day who have fought and died for the right to vote. So, the same way our parents tell us not to waste food because of the children in Africa, we shouldn’t neglect the elections because of those who died and fought for this right to vote.

As we discussed people’s usual reason as to why they don’t vote, the common excuse of “I don’t know anything about these candidates” was brought up. Of course, in a country notorious for its laziness, there is an incredulous amount of Americans that don’t consider this idea: Research about your candidates. It’s not hard in this day and age to get to know your candidates and party and to familiarize yourself with what’s happening in your country. Each vote counts, and spreading that ideology that it doesn’t isn’t going to make this country any closer to being “for the people, by the people.”

With the presidential debates happening, it is evident that the United States is shifting away from democratic ideals. The presidential debate yesterday seemed like a debate on which candidate had performed worse actions rather than a debate on political issues. Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton both have issues that they believe are worth attacking each other on and many of these attacks from Trump are false accusations, which express nothing democratic. Trump has always made outrageous claims and statements to spur controversy and in yesterday’s debate, he threatened both Clinton and our democracy.

In the short article and video “Donald Trump’s threat to imprison Hillary Clinton is a threat to democracy”, Zack Beauchamp discusses how Trump, if elected for president, will be dominant and less restricted than we think. In the first presidential debate, Trump states that he would support Clinton if she is elected for president, and now he claims to be very motivated in putting her in jail if he is elected for president instead. Trump has always been firm and motivated on his stance on how he plans to change America, which will be possible though he has been reckless on spouting his atrocious beliefs. Zack Beauchamp recalls how these attacks are coming from Trump, someone that supports Putin dictatorship and plans to run the country the same way rather than as a president to show how serious he is.

After hearing how Trump would put Clinton in jail if he could, it is hard to believe that a majority of people support him with the presidency. In a democratic society, equal opportunities and equal rights are to be expressed, but with how the presidential debates are going, none of that is being expressed. Donald Trump as an elected candidate, should present ideas favorable to those that elected him, but has only made false accusations on Clinton and brought up racial discussions as a form of attacks.

http://www.vox.com/2016/10/9/13222302/donald-trump-jail-hillary-clinton-second-debate

In general, I’ve never really given much thought to “democracy” — that is, as conventional wisdom dictated to my apparent preconceived notion, democracy is good, right?

Well, after reading Andrew Sullivan’s piece, “America Has Never Been So Ripe for Tyranny”, in the New York Magazine, I really began to question to what extent is democracy actually beneficial to our country. Yes, generally speaking, I do believe that equal opportunities and rights for all people is something that we need to work on and strive for. However, specifically speaking, we should be more cautious in regards to how open-minded we are actually being and following through with the “mob mentality” when we elect our president.

In respect to this preparedness, Sullivan argues that America’s stability in terms of democracy is largely due to the Founding Father’s consideration of Plato’s fear that democracy may inevitably be a birthing site for tyranny: “To guard our democracy from the tyranny of the majority and the passions of the mob, they constructed large, hefty barriers between the popular will and the exercise of power.”

As portrayed by recent events, Americans have seemingly started to become more tolerant of having anybody lead their country because nobody trusts politicians. But, at the same time, no “ordinary” citizen truly knows how the government operates as well as the people of their eminent distrust. Evident by the once-running campaigns of Carly Fiorina and Ben Carson, but fully exacerbated by the Republican candidate Donald Trump, “this further widening of our democracy — our increased openness to being led by anyone; indeed, our accelerating preference for outsiders — is now almost complete.”

Are we really going to let someone with no political background lead our country? Honestly, this really terrifies me, and political affiliation aside, I think we all should be worried. When our “democracy” broadens so much so to the point where our next president has even resorted to name-calling his opponents in a debate, paired with all of the ridiculous remarks he has made in his spotlight, we should be concerned. Additionally, Sullivan even remarks that perhaps the GOP should stop trying to justify their support for Trump and instead sacrifice this election for the sake of our country.

Essentially, I think both a framework of governance and equal rights should be present, but there’s a line to be drawn before we crossover the lines of a “democracy” in this regard.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/04/america-tyranny-donald-trump.html#

Democracy—what is the exact definition of democracy? Is there even a definition, or is it just an open ended idea that exists in our minds? As defined by Merriam-Webster, democracy is “a form of government in which people choose leaders by voting” and “an organization or situation in which everyone is treated equally and has equal rights.” But, do we all have equal rights, or does that only apply to some people?

If we were all to be treated equally, why does racism and sexism exist? Are we even giving the same amount of chances to those who are colored? Though some would say that colored people are not putting in enough effort, it is almost inevitable to say that racism exists. With the addition of media play, it seems as if colored people are not recognized for their efforts. Continually, white superiority flourishes and is almost unbeatable.

Additionally, women continue to make less than men do even though they do the same amount of work. Women make up approximately half of the work force, as do men, but most women make 80% of what men make. Despite ongoing fights for the rights and equality of women, some people just can’t seem to trust a female candidate for the presidency. Like the election in 2008, people were skeptical of having a colored president at first, we should be accepting of difference.

We, as citizens of the United States, should become more open-minded to diversity. If we are to continue to be a democratic country, we should demonstrate democratic ideas and mend the flaws we have made.

Please read “What Happened to the Girls of Le Roy” by Susan Dominus, NY Times, March 7, 2012.

Dominus describes an outbreak of “hysteria” in upstate New York in 2012 that has eeerie echoes of 17th century Salem!

This presidential election of 2016, has so far been a roller coaster of a ride with a still anticipated hard drop that may drastically change the course of history.  The presidential debate last week has reiterated some of the different ways that democracy has taken a different turn in this country. One particular candidate, Donald Trump, has taken an unusual approach to American democracy. Many of his usual outrageous statements were made in the debate. Yet in the setting of a professional presidential debate, I think it is highly unprofessional for a presidential candidate to emphasize and question such unrelated factors such as the state of stamina of the opposing presidential candidate. Trump also put even more light on how he doesn’t care about the issues of minorities, including the problem of race and crime in many communities, as he showed support for stop-and-frisk, in outrageous claims to help African American and Latino communities. Our democracy is meant to support the American people and all of them, regardless of sex, race and sexuality. Yet there is a clear threat to that democracy through the actions of a potential Presidential figure.

On top of that, after reading a NYtimes opinion article titled, “Who Gets to Vote,” written by Alexander Keyssar, I realized an even stronger threat to American democracy that is already in place. Voting in elections is pretty much the basic principle and right given by American democracy.  Yet in recent years, many states have enforced stricter voting laws in result of the changes of the Voting Rights Act in 2013. Many ID laws have been put in place in different states, making it harder for those who don’t have photo identification to vote.  These laws put a disadvantage to African Americans and Latino voters as based on statistics, these groups are more likely to lack accepted photo identification. Many registered voters of these states with these voting laws, will be affected, with Texas having an approximated 600,000 registered voters being affected with their anticipated strict ID law. This can greatly affect the turnout of the election as truly, not all registered voters can even participate in voting for this election due to these laws. It also benefits the Republican party as it is in their benefit by “reducing turnout among poor people, African-Americans, Hispanics and students.” We as a country, need a democracy that delivers to the people, where our different political beliefs don’t get in the way of equal rights.