The common good

I think this article expresses what most people think about the idea of the common good. Most societies all want a common good, but sometimes its just really unrealistic.  Maybe it's difficult to agree exactly how to get to a common good, but if we want to improve healthcare, environment, and education changing government regulations of these things is not going to improve them.  I think that to change for the better good our best bet is to improve the attitudes of all americans. Just look at the social democracies of the Scandinavian countries.  They are some of the happiest countries in the world, while america is not at all.
    How can this be done?  The government can't do everything.  It has to start in the home first with basic values. However, government policies can help.  Free systems have a tendency to work well when the work that people put in for personal benefit also benefits society.  I am writing this blog because I want a good grade, but at the same time I help the class by putting forward my ideas.  If we can come up with rewards for people who do good, then we can nurture open-mindedness and a positive attitude about progress.
Lastly, I think James Madison would think that the common good is achievable through reason and the union of individual and societal goal

RECOUNT

Facts from movie:

1. Possibly 200,000 possible voters never got to vote because their names were close to criminals names thus they were illegally ostracized from the election.
2. Al Gore retracted his concession to Bush after hearing what was happening in Florida
3. The Supreme Court ended the process of recounting Florida's votes
4. the Florida state Supreme Court passed the case of Bush vs. Gore to the US Supreme Court
5. there was great confusion over what was a vote and what was not a vote
6. The Republicans stated that they were against dimpled chads, though their candidate George W. Bush's state policy was that the intent of a vote, an dimple, counted as a vote.
7. In the trial Bush vs. Gore Bush won in a 5 to 4 split of the court.
8. The recount was ended one day before the deadline.

Question:

1. Would the Republicans agree with what the Democrat were trying to do if their positions were switched?
2. What was the exact percent/ number of vote difference needed for a recount?
3. How many people from Florida vote in the 2000 election?
4. Is it normally extremely hard to get a recount?
5. Are Jim and Chris really complete opposites or was their views dramatized for the movie?
6. What would happen if there was a situation like that of in the movie Swing Vote?
7. Should there be new machines/ ballots for future elections?
8. What would have happened if Gore won in Bush vs. Gore?

2000 election

Prereading Questions:
1.  Should the recount of even taken place?
2.  Was it wrong of Gore to take back his concession?
3.  Should the Supreme Court of gotten involved?
4.  Should more time have been giving for a recount?
5.  Why were some counties so against a manual recount?

Facts/details from the reading:
1.  Florida's county election board use different methods for collecting votes.
2.  Neither cutoff dates for the recount would of been sufficient enough time.
3.  The assaults on the courts from the liberals were stunning.
4.  Liberals view conservatives primitives who are corrupt.
5.  Author believes that the courts are the heavy artillery for liberalism engaged. 

Postreading Questions:
1.  Should the courts get involved in any future elections?
2.  Should every state have a regulated voting system?
3.  How can the states stop any future voting flaws?
4.  Is it right for the political parties to call each other as primitive?
5.  Should Congress pass any bills that will give a clear solution for any future voting problems

factions

Madison's definition: A number of citizens, whether amounting to a minority or majority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.


When Madison talks about a faction, I think he is saying a group a people that are united and want the same purpose.  There is one thing that they all have in common.  As a whole the group of people are allowed to share a common interest, because of the rights that they would be granted from the Constitution.  I would say that faction still exist and play a role in the government.   

Questions:


1. Is a faction supposed to be a fraction of the people?
2.  Does the passion or interest that they share have to be constitutional?
3.  Where did the name faction come from
4.  Do the citizens have to be American citizens for a certain period of time?
5.  Were factions a major part of the Constitution

My Definition: A group of people united by a passion or interest against their rights, or the interest of the community.

Present Role: People in politics who are for the same thing, such as a political party.

response to constitution questions

1.  Would the founding fathers agree with the changes made to the Constitution, or do you think they would be disappointed?

 I think the founding fathers would be pleased with the changes that have been made to the Constitution.  They knew that the country would always be changing, that's why they made the Constitution able to  be edited.  If we could not change it, we would not be as far along in society as we already are, we would still be living in old days.  They might not agree with what we changed, but they would be able to understand our reasoning behind doing it.  


2. How is it that the Constitution has been changed so few times over such a long period? 

I also like this question because it makes people really think, not only about what the Constitution included, but about the way the citizens of the United States act as a whole. Everyone living in the US follow rules written on a piece of paper by people we never met before. We read about the founding fathers and see pictures of them, but we have never actually talked to them before. This piece of paper keeps our country alive and in order, and it is interesting to see how people follow it. The document has yet to crumple or fail, and I think because it keeps an order in the country, people will follow it. Sometimes people need guidelines to live life by, and the Constitution kind of acts as those guidelines.

Democracy in America

Facts

1. The wolf was one of the first species in the Endangered Species Act
2. Idaho citizens did not want the wolves there
3. Federal restrictions had to be followed for wolves by farmers and other citizens
4.  Almost 40% of crashes or deths on highways are because of drunk driving.
5. South Carolina objected to the government's call for a standard number on a breathalizer
6. 0.10 blood alcohol level was finally compromised for South Carolina
7. 0.08 was decided by the government and if it was not passed the government would take away highway funds
8. South Carolina did not like the penalty that would be given if 0.08 was not passed
9. In 2002 a bill was passed in North Carolina that 0.08 was considered as under the influence for drunk driving
10. Michigan provided much support for women moving from welfare to work

Questions

1. Why were wolves introduced to Idaho and not another state like montanta?
2. Were wolves threatening the people of Idaho or just the livestock? 
3. Why was South Carolina so against lowering the blood alcohol level for drunk driving?
4. Did South Carolina not realize raising the limit could possibly help save lives?
5. how much are highway funds?
6. iS south carolina always poor?
7. Why did some states not provide as much support for people when moving from welfare to work?
8. Which states have good welfare systems?
9. Why is the south more poor than the rest of America
10.Why is there a different welfare system for different states

Responses

1. Did the founding fathers intend for the Constitution to last until today, or did they expect that it would be revised/rewritten?


I believe that they were creating under the impression that it would not be changed.  It was a document that would uphold the rules for a whole nation.  And although they did not want it to be altered, i think that they left it somewhat vague and with more generalizations than specific situations so that over time it could be interpreted differently.


2.  How is it that the Constitution has been changed so few times over such a long period?"  

I think that it has only been changed a few times because when it was written, it was written with the intention of upholding order for a whole country no matter what.  It is a moral standard to follow and while technology changes, people havnt changed that much.  Not many changes have been needed because the founding fathers did a pretty good job of writing rules.