Phase Seven: Voting for Voter's Votes

As we are all aware by now, the USA is in the midst of a heated primary season. Politicians are at each other’s throats, and their constituents are going tooth-and-nail as well. Voting has become a risky thing and with the recent cases of voter fraud and suspected hacking, people are becoming more discouraged to make their voices heard.

Fraud comes in all shapes and sizes, but the most popular of late is voter suppression. During its primary, Arizona citizens were complaining that there were “a limited number of polling places, extended wait times and issues with the ballots.” The plaintiff, John Brakey, brought the case to the local court and it was ultimately decided that while his evidence was taken as true, there was not enough to prove true fault anywhere. Unfortunately, this issue is not uncommon, as inconsistencies in voting apparatuses and laws between counties and states are making it increasingly difficult to cast a ballot.

I can’t decisively say who is to blame for these acts of suppression. Is it the voters who have been “hacking” the system? Not really, because the chances of this happening are actually incredibly slim. I also can’t say that we should blame the government entirely for this, considering that voter turnout took a sharp downturn in 2012, showing a decrease in interest. I do agree, though, that the way voting has laid out for this year’s primaries, it truly does seem unfair and restricted.

1. http://www.jurist.org/paperchase/2016/04/arizona-judge-dismisses-voter-fraud-complaint.php
2. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-wellington-ennis/confronting-voter-suppres_b_9812612.html
3. http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/08/07/31-in-a-billion-election-experts-report-shatter/200359
4. http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout

Phase Six: Democracy is Dead

I responded to Eddy Castillo's post, titled "Voting for a man you hate?"

While I see where you’re coming from with your perspective, Eddy, I must respectfully disagree. Manteuffel is suggesting that retracting her potential vote for a candidate she truly believes in will prevent Donald Trump from gaining the votes he needs to win the nomination.

How does this make sense? Imagine I am an avid Bernie Sanders supporter, and I see that Donald Trump is leading the Republican party by a lot. In this situation, should I do anything that I can to stop him from winning the nomination -- which, by the way, is entirely inevitable at this point -- and give another Republican my vote? Or would it perhaps be a better option to ignore the stigma that “Democrats don’t stand a chance” and actually cast a vote for a person I believe in?

It is not only naive to believe that a singular vote in most parts in the United States will sway the nomination far enough from Trump, but nonsensical to vote for a candidate one does not believe in. “Vote for someone you despise” is a dangerous idea to experiment with, and it would be safer to vote for someone whose politics you stand behind. Tim Shea suggests that the two-party system the States are so insistent upon enforcing in a less-than-democratic manner is convoluted. Democracy is no good if its people do not take advantage of their right to vote for whom they choose.

1. http://libertyhangout.org/2016/02/the-only-wasted-vote-is-for-the-candidate-you-dont-believe-in/
2. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/im-wielding-my-electoral-power-of-40-texas-republicans-to-vote-for-a-man-i-hate/2016/03/11/ca9d236a-e704-11e5-a6f3-21ccdbc5f74e_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-b%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

Phase Five: A Critique on the Social Elite

The healthcare system in America is skewed. I know it, my doctors know it, and privatized healthcare corporations know it, which is why they are able to take advantage of and profit from needier citizens, such as myself.

Recently, I have woken up and become more angry with the way things are for people with disabilities. Promises to make healthcare "affordable" have been made, and promptly thrown out the window. The options citizens have to get proper medical care are extremely limited if they don't make a certain income. Medicare, while a very useful service, has been made extraordinarily hard to get. The only people guaranteed to get this service are those who require kidney treatment. Medicaid is equally as difficult to come by, which begs the question, is this government truly "for the people"?

As many of us already know, Germany, Sweden and Canada all offer free universal healthcare, and are among 11 nations who currently do the same. Many other countries have been offering affordable healthcare for years. Why did it take the United States so long to get aboard?

There's been a lot of skepticism over charts released, comparing United States tax rates on healthcare to other nations. What truly sets America apart is the fact that even though we pay more for healthcare benefits, we aren't guaranteed coverage. We paid more than the United Kingdom, Italy, and New Zealand combined on private healthcare in 2007.

Thanks to Obama's Affordable Care Act, everyone at least gets the opportunity to get health coverage, and some people can get it for $20. Only recently has public healthcare spending exceeded private, and by a small margin. I can only hope that someday our leaders will realize how truly large this issue is, and erase the line between medical care being a 'basic human right' and a 'luxury.'