Not Enough Voters

Voter's Registration. A right of passage that every young American who is freshly 18 will partake in. Well... almost every American. There are still millions of eligible Americans who are unregistered. So why is this?

When you compare the American system of registering to vote to that of other countries, it's easy to see why. In America, registering is solely the responsibility of the individual. Whereas in other countries, there's much better voting encouragement and even compulsory voting in some places. So, what could America do to increase the amount of voters?

Personally, I believe one solution in which America could increase their voter turnout is by removing the "burden" from the individual. I have many friends who have just gone through the voter's registration process for the first time. And many who haven't. But while they all have their reasoning, not one of them said it was because they didn't want to vote. When kids turn 18, they don't just magically turn into adults who have time management down to a science (how many adults actually do?) or even start to think about the fact that they're legally adult in the eyes of the law. Many people just simply forgot, or maybe there wasn't time for them to go register, I mean, many probably didn't know how. So, by having a system of a voter registration that took the pressure off the individual, America would see a much greater number of its people at the poles, being able to speak freely and use their rights as a citizen. This could even be handled at the time of getting a drivers license (with an option for them to opt out of course, as it is their right). Now, of course they wouldn't be able to vote until they turned of age, but it'd already have people pre-registered when elections roll around, all they'd be required to do is show a valid form of i.d. Those who don't get their license would of course be left out of this system, but they of course should be given easier access to voter registration as well. 

But hey, maybe it's a system that wouldn't work or maybe even backfire, but I think there's no doubt in anyone's mind that more Americans should be voting. So a solution should be looked for, and if you think my idea isn't viable or necessary (or even if you agree with me!), I'd love to know. 

How to Fix The Supreme Court Without Blowing it Up: A Critique

I read "How to Fix The Supreme Court Without Blowing it Up" from Washington Monthly, which is where Noah Berlatsky laid out the issues he sees with the Supreme Court and a few proposed ways in which it could be fixed. He writes for a liberal audience, as it's written on a left leaning blog, who most likely share the same views as him on the issue of a power imbalance. Berlatsky himself is very left leaning and he's written very liberal articles on several different sites. However, in this article, he seems to portray a more centralist view. While still left leaning and explaining liberal views, he describes solutions that wouldn't hurt the Republicans (in fact one could even give them more power potentially). He appears to at least be trying to remain impartial, while still relaying his beliefs. This causes me to see his credibility seems as reliable, as he seems fairly knowledgeable on leftist politics yet isn't trying to claim that his opinions are anything other than that.

His main argument is that the Supreme Court is imbalanced, and will only remain this way in the foreseeable future. This is because Republicans only retire when a Republican President is in power, and Democrats only retire when Democratic Presidents are in power. However, at the moment, Republicans seem to hold a much higher degree of power in regards to the balancing of the system. It's because of this that Berlatsky claims that many Democrats are starting to petition for a change in the system. In a country where power is supposed to be equal and unbiased, it doesn't seem right that one political party gets to hold it and call the shots. Berlatsky then lays out a couple of different ways in which the Supreme Court could be fixed: from simply implementing a one judge per term rule to a constitutional amendment.

Overall, I agree with his message. I do believe that the government should be more balanced in the way it functions, and one party shouldn't be able hold all the power in their hands. An unbalanced world is a dangerous one. I don't know what would go into changing the rules for creating more harmony, but I don't think it's an argument that people should balk at or even just jump on immediately. Because to create a balanced system, it requires communication from both sides. Otherwise, it's not "fixing" it, it's just wrapping it up in duct tape and saying "that'll last." Until it doesn't.

Beto vs Cruz: An Opinion from the Houston Chronicle

I just read the Houston Chronicle Editorial Board endorsement of Beto O’Rourke. The article, dated October 19th, 2018, touches on the personality difference between the two candidates. Republicans are quoted calling Ted Cruz “Lucifer in the flesh” and a “miserable son of a bitch” (John Boehner). Lindsey Graham said, “If you killed Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate, and the trial was in the Senate, nobody would convict you.” And this is from the people who are supposedly on his team?

Beto O’Rourke is described as a “charismatic El Pasoans” who has “skills, both personal and political.” Who would be “good for Texas” due to his advocating for “Texas through bipartisan cooperation.” He seems like a genuinely good person who wants to do what he thinks is best for Texas. 

I like Beto, and it seems that many others do as well. However, I wonder if there’s anyone who likes Ted Cruz. 

I know that many people may criticize the source of my article, The Houston Chronicle. It’s been heavily criticized for being liberal and being biased. However, the paper endorsed Ted Cruz in 2012. 

The article, however, makes the point that “voters don’t send representatives to Washington to win popularity contests.” They’re saying that whoever we send to Washington shouldn’t be the person who’s going to focus on winning people over rather than representing their state. This is one main difference between Cruz and Beto that I’ve come to realize. During his time in Senate, Cruz seems to be focused on “the higher prize” and advancing only himself. Whereas Beto honestly seems to want to help his people and state. 

If Cruz is elected again, we’ll have another six years 6 of a man more focused on his wants and desires. I don’t know about you, but in my opinion, I don’t want a man like that “representing” me. But I don’t know. Maybe I don’t know anything. But if I could vote, I know who I would vote for. 

John McCain’s greatest lesson was 'to forgive' and 'see the good' in opponents'

Quinn Scanlan and Roey Hadar, two reporters for ABC News, wrote the piece "John McCain’s greatest lesson was 'to forgive' and 'see the good' in opponents: Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake" on August 26th, 2018, to honor John McCain after his passing. It's a short and sweet article just explaining who John McCain was and to show that he was admired by many, even those who would've been considered his opponents. 

I think it's an article worth reading because it shows a side of the government I wouldn't say is very commonly shown in the news and it is something just to put a lighter tone in today's world. The article explains the impact that McCain had on different people, such as House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi. It taught me a side of McCain that I didn't know, as in reality the last time I had heard about him I was seven years old hearing my parents talk about the election. Since I'm just starting to get interested in politics as I'm getting closer to the age where I can vote, it really showed me that politics shouldn't be viewed as a "them vs. us" situation and that it's important to remember "to forgive" and "to see the good in [our] opponents."

Hello

Hi, I'm Lucy.