Revisions to the Prior Post:"The American Nation in a Nutshell"

Since the founding of the American nation, its citizens have prospered, as well as suffered, under a system of democracy. Some may call this system a success while others believe a system of anarchy would be equally efficient. The truth is most Americans have not experienced the adversities found in other forms of government, such as communism or totalitarianism, and take for granted the hard earned freedoms and liberties they are allowed. In my opinion, the system itself is fantastic; I am able to speak my mind, write what I want, own property, elect officials, freely practice religion, etc. All of these things are guaranteed by the Bill of Rights - just one of the many written documents that help moderate American government. Despite all of the features that allow for a thriving nation, there are also flaws and setbacks that cause other nations to frown upon us. I believe the root of flaws in American government is the election process as well as government officials.

In terms of the actual election process, citizens have asked, "why vote when my vote doesn't actually count?" It would be nice to answer the proposed question with a simple “of course your vote counts”, but unfortunately the system of voting is not that straight forward, just ask Al Gore. In the 2000 Presidential Election, Al Gore won the popular vote with 50,999,897 votes versus George W. Bush's 50,456,002, but, lost the electoral vote with 266 votes versus Bush's 271 due to the intricate Electoral College system. The system allows all citizens, 18 years of age and older, to vote for his or her candidate of choice. Each state views who received the most votes and then representatives (number based on population) from that candidate's political party vote for their candidate of choice. Those are the deciding votes which may fail to agree with the national majority, causing widespread tension and distrust in the system. When citizens are uncertain about the legitimacy of their government it often can lead to questioning the intentions and genuineness of government officials.

Government officials are human beings, human beings have flaws. Therefore, a flawless government is next to impossible. If one conducted a background check on each candidate running for a government position he would find that the majority are from wealthy, prestigious families and most likely majored in some branch of law. Lawyers are known for being able to state cases in a way that will persuade the listener to take their side. In an election they could use this ability to twist their view on a topic to appeal to the majority and, once elected, follow the true meaning of their words. Another point to ponder is, with the election of the official comes his or her bias; when a wealthy person takes charge one might see particular wealthy groups finding special treatment/attention or, as seen in our nation’s Congress, unnecessary, expensive projects may be taken up in a senator’s state. This brings up the question of term lengths (should certain positions have shortened stays?) as well as the diversity of officials’ backgrounds (should government consist of different sectors that focus on specific topics i.e. Environmental, Laws, Economy or should candidates have a more diverse/experienced background?). The truth is, no matter what steps are taken, people have opinions and incentives.

Freakonomics, by Steven Levitt & Stephen Dubner, addresses the topic of incentives, or "any factor that provides a motive for a particular course of action". This explains the special attention received by groups with extremes such as the wealthy or those suffering extreme poverty. The incentive with assisting the wealthy is a nice reward written on a piece of paper to be stuck in one's pocket for later use; the incentive for helping the poor is positive publicity to be witnessed by the world. With the American economy on the descent, the focus of the government has shifted to digging the nation out of debt, forcing many decisions to be made based on how they will financially affect the country. Some of these decisions leave Americans questioning the efficiency of our government along with its democratic system. If Americans want change, they have the right to protest, they have the right to run for office, and they have the right to leave the country.

My advice to fix governmental flaws is to fix the system that elects officials and to rewrite the typical background of candidates.

That is:
-Base the election on the popular vote; encourage people to vote by ensuring that their vote actually counts. People may find it taboo to rewrite the election process, but, as the elastic clause states, we can adapt laws to fit present-time and its people.
-It isn't wrong or bad to have people of wealth or of law in government, but with too many wealthy lawyers one may find himself living in an aristocracy rather than a democracy. If government officials were more diversified, that is: educated and knowledgeable in the sciences, mathematics, law, economics, business, arts, etc., people would be more respectful of officials leading to greater trust in government.

Links:
*Government quotes to ponder
*Information on elected officials and current candidates