Stage 7

            According to a poll taken on ISideWith.com, 11,217,255 voters agree on a term limit for congress. A term limit for congress may help keep members motivated while in office because the amount of time in which they can accomplish goals is compressed. Representatives tend to wait until reelection (knowing they’re likely to be reelected) to pass or pay notice to policies suggested by constituents as a method for securing their place. This process is fool-proof; by acting for the people just before election their positive support increases and ensures their seat for the next “term”.

            Longevity may have a direct influence on the amount of corruption experienced by office holders. As stated by Mike Gallagher, “I fundamentally do not believe that politicians who spend decades in the nation’s capital can change Washington before Washington changes them”. While our representatives begin to find themselves comfortable and secure in their seat they seem to develop a lackadaisical mindset on the concerns of the people.

            Ultimately we are left with a congress that only focuses on local issues to ensure their reelection–making national concerns a lesser priority and creating corruption as well as underrepresentation. Seemingly, the most plausible solution to an undetermined and corrupt congress is to provide motivation through horological pressure. If you don’t take your office and people’s voices seriously then you will fail to accomplish goals. If you are genuinely invested in your duty as a representative, then even with your time constraints, you will fuel your political ambition with your term limit and work for the people. Maybe a term limit will even inspire our representatives to work for the bigger picture and venture away from strictly local concerns.

            

Stage 6

            I agree with the argument made in “Our No Good, Very Bad Voter Turnout”, in regards to the mending of our voter turnout rates. Our country reflects poor statistics when comparing the eligible voting population to the number of ballots submitted (in various elections years <[Click for statistics]). Given this evidence I would say We the Sheeple’s argument is logical and valid, however I’m uncertain on the statistics supporting the unnecessity of the Voter I.D. Laws.

             It’s challenging to merely take word of mouth when a bold claim is made. Perhaps citing the source of information would prove to be beneficial for their credibility. If producing Voter I.D. has no effect on the intensity of Voter Fraud, an expert testimony and legitimate numerical evidence would be necessary to sway the opinion of the audience. Personally, I believe producing I.D. to prevent fraud is a logical argument, simply coming from a place of common sense (I have no evidence to back this). Instinct is not always a reasonable route however; hard facts would force readers to reconsider.

            I whole heartedly agree with making Election Day a national holiday, I believe this would greatly increase voters within middle and poverty class citizens.  Diminishing the stress of finances versus country by showing hard working American’s their government genuinely wants their input would have an impact exceeding Election Day.  

            Pretending the intended audience isn’t classmates or the professor, I would venture this article would draw the attention of the American public. After all who better to change the course of voter turnout than the voters themselves? While the help of our lawmakers would be greatly appreciated in this process, it is ultimately up to the public to be diligent and turn up on Election Day.

           

            

Original Editorial/Commentary #1

There are 109 women in the 115^th congress out of 535 members; meaning although women make up over half of the population, they are severely underrepresented amongst our lawmakers. The house and senate consist of majority men, where is the problem in this? A group of middle age men (and older) should not be calling the shots for 162 million people who differ in anatomy, mindset, history, and concerns.

A perfect example of this is abortion, although I feel I’m beating a dead horse by mentioning it. Men are certainly, entirely excluded from the act of getting an abortion or perhaps they should be. There are certain aspects of abortion that affect everyone, and for those, all sexes should be involved such as, should government pay for abortion.

The primary purpose of mentioning the old “pro-life” or “pro-choice” ordeal is because it should be “women’s choice”. Personally, I feel the act should be (women’s choice), but I’m referring to the voting process. Middle aged men shouldn’t be voting on a subject that they cannot possibly empathize (key word, empathize) with. Women should play a majority role (if not the only) in making the decisions that exclusively affect them.

The only solution to this dilemma is to corral more women into congress. Women who’ve lacked encouragement and inclusion growing up tend to avoid office. While this is not the fault of congress, but more within the arena of parenting, there is something congress can do. It is on the shoulders of congresswomen to encourage younger generations to become more involved. Whether it be taking time out of their day to speak to girl scout troops in their area or suggest a push for more informative government education (not taught by gym teachers) across the board.

While it is important for young boys to be encouraged as well, I believe we are at a point where girls require more of a push (the numbers truly speak for themselves). It’s disheartening to know it is 2017 and women still don’t have the voice they should, along with various races/ethnicities. Women were the last to legally vote, the last to be allowed work, the last allowed in the streets unaccompanied (this refers to ALL women in the United States). Congress needs more women within its ranks or women will never truly be represented in this country.