Physics 2- Week 1
Physics 2- Week 1 PHY 2180/2185
Popular in Physics II
Popular in Physics 2
MOT 5505, 5510
verified elite notetaker
This 4 page Class Notes was uploaded by Jayla J Jackson on Wednesday September 28, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to PHY 2180/2185 at Wayne State University taught by Dr. Jeffrey Conn in Spring 2016. Since its upload, it has received 14 views. For similar materials see Physics II in Physics 2 at Wayne State University.
Reviews for Physics 2- Week 1
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 09/28/16
Jayla Jackson 3/5/16 Ch. 12 Discussion Questions 1) I believe that the Electoral College should definitely stay because it keeps voting very fair amongst the population. With this system America has been able to agree whom the best president would be from the population and their personal views and also with the electors who knows which person would fit the needs of America best. The Electoral College is a good idea because it’s like a double check to make sure that the right decision is being made. Yes, things may come to a split like the 2000 elections but then it becomes our responsibility to make sure that we’re actually making a good decision in making that person president. According to Keeping the Republic, “Major criticisms of the current system include the claims that the Electoral College is undemocratic because it is possible for the popular winner not to get a majority of the electoral votes, that in a very close contest the popular outcome could be dictated by a few “faithless electors” who vote their conscience rather than the will of the people of their states, and the Electoral College distorts candidates’ campaign strategies” (403). However, this could also be true for any person. We are only human and this could be the vendetta of one of the electors but we hope that the people that were elected to be the electors would pick the president based off of who makes has the best interest of America. A one-person-one vote system would allow people to avoid smaller states because they wouldn’t have as much pool as other states. 2) I think that it does matter that there is such a low voter participation. According to Keeping the Republic states that there are two ways to answer this question which are that, “One approach is to ask whether election outcomes would be different if nonvoters were to participate. The other approach is to ask whether higher levels of nonvoting indicate that democracy is not healthy” (392). I don’t believe that if nonvoters were to participate, that it would have a greater change. I believe this because those people are generally uneducated about what the campaigns are even about, forcing them to just vote based off of word of mouth and whomever they’re closest to votes for. I believe that it suggests the lack of efficiency of American politics and it suggests their lack of knowledge. If they really understood politics and that everyone’s voice counts, then they would be more inclined and motivated to get out there and vote. It’s only when you have a panel of all similar people running for a title would you have people just saying that they would be satisfied with whoever wins but they aren’t. There are different parties, different goals, and different mindsets with each candidate therefore you can’t be satisfied with just anyone that wins the elections. I also don’t know how you can be a rational nonvoter when you aren’t kept up to speed with what’s going on in the elections. In order to improve voter turnout, the government should make it more accessible to the poorer communities. 3) All federal elections should not be publicly financed to avoid fundraising because if the people believe in you than they should be more than willing to give money for your cause. It shouldn’t be the peoples’ right to fund something that they don’t even believe should be funded. Keeping the Republic made a good point when they said, “The idea behind the law is to more easily regulate big money influence on campaign finances, ensure a fair contest, and free up candidates to communicate with the public” (412). I believe that this idea still applies when it comes to actual fundraising. It should only be to the people that want to give their money to them. They should be funded by actual fundraising and soliciting and that could help with promoting the goals and views of the candidates. Once more words get out, instead of just false accusations through social media, more people can be properly educated on the issues of the candidates. The only problem with being publicly financed, is that candidates may result in taking a lot of money from side organizations that could be used as a bribe for whatever their personal goals are. 5) There’s many things that go into debates in order for someone to be determined the winner. The main idea about debates is that you want to see your candidate being dominate and taking charge. Showing that level of dominance during debates allows for one to show their leadership roles and that over their opponent, their voice will be heard and their agenda will be met. The Washington Monthly stated that, “What history can tell us is that presidential debates, while part of how the game is played, are rarely what decide the game itself (Do Presidential Debates Really Matter?). I understand why they said this because in scientist’s research, they discovered that before the debates there wasn’t a big a large poll shift from one candidate to the other before and after the debates. However, for many, the debates solidify who they potentially thought they were going to be voting for. Fortune states, “Just because one debate is unlikely to serve as a make-or-break moment, though, doesn’t mean they don’t serve any purpose—or that candidates don’t have to be on their toes” (The Presidential primary debates do matter ... sort of). Fortune makes a great point because the debates are the only time where we (the voters) are able to see the candidates and instill confidence that they deserve the position at hand. I also don’t believe that you can be a great president and be a bad orator because how else will you be able to convey what you want accomplished in the White House. No one will take you seriously if conveying a simple message is a problem. How will you convey a peaceful and encouraging speech in a time of chaos? You must be a good orator on some degree.
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'