Short Presentation- Final

Here is a link to my short presentation about the Negative Effect of Third Party Candidates on the American Political Process. This is a Prezi document, and inside of it at the end, there is a short YouTube video I made and will narrate in class. I hope you enjoy!

My Prezi here (YouTube video inside Prezi)

The Positive Impact of Third Party Candidates

“There are two ways of winning,” said John Hagelin, the Natural Law Party's presidential candidate, “winning offices and winning in the way third parties almost always win, which is in the marketplace of ideas.” Third party candidates usually don't have much of a chance of winning the American elections, but they do have an important impact. In these elections a Republican and a Democrat usually go head to head with little face-to-face battle with a third party candidate. Although a third party candidate does not have much of a chance of winning an election, it is powerful that they have the chance to influence the election, and it is seen that third party candidates really do have an impact on the American political process. As seen in the 2000 presidential election, an third party candidate shifted votes and contributed to president George W. Bush's win. Third party candidates are a positive impact on the American political process because their contribution stands for American values, they can push important issues, and because they can effect the outcome of an election.

Third party candidates are a positive impact on todays society. This is seen today because third party candidates can put stress on key voter issues that the main political parties will have to address, and can wash out political candidates that are not able to make a distinct stamp on the nation.
According to Joe Atkinson in fall 2000, "Bob Roth, who served as Hagelin's campaign manager, cited Perot's unsuccessful campaign in 1992 as the most recent example of a third-party candidate re-shaping the country's political mindset. “Perot brought out the issues of a balanced budget and campaign finance reform,” Roth said, “which no one was even talking about at the time.”" Balancing the budget is now a very important issue that the candidates have to take strong positions on right away. This is partially because of the issues that we face today with the threat of a large debt, but also because third party candidates can take somewhat mild stances, and that forces the Republicans and Democrats to take strong opinions.

Third party candidates can shift votes and change the outcome of the presidential election. This impact could be seen as both positive and negative, but I think it is positive because it further allows the American people to pick their own government. Third party candidates remind me of the American dream that anyone can change their life. The Republicans and Democrats are two huge parties, but the people should not have to pick one or the other. As seen on Boundless.com, "Although it is unlikely that a third party candidate will ever garner a plurality of the vote, they can influence the election by taking votes away from a major party candidate. This was at issue during the 2000 election when Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader took votes away from Democrat Al Gore, a situation that some felt contributed to the victory of Republican George W. Bush." It is hard to determine whether this was a good impact on America because we don't know how Al Gore would have been as a president, but I still feel like this was a positive influence because it picked the candidate that stood out the most. George W. Bush was force to make a strong stance on where he stood, and make sure he was not anything like Ralph Nader, who his votes could go to. “The two major parties have become xerox copies of each other on the issues I care about,” Buchanan said, citing big government and international issues, such as foreign intervention and immigration, as his biggest concerns." The third party candidates can shift this so that the political parties have to change so that they are not so alike. According to Jill Kokemuller from Demand Media, "the presence of a third-party candidate usually draws votes away from one of the main two parties because of similar platforms. This gives the advantage to the other party, which may not have won if there was no third-party candidate to split the opposing vote." This forces the candidates to come up with new ideas and plans so that they can be better than their competitor, but also look good in response to the third party candidate's pressing.

Third party candidates are a positive influence on the American political process because they force large voter issues, and because they can sway the presidency. They don't have much of a chance of actually winning the election, but they can foreshadow hot-button issues that are key to the battle between the Republican candidate and the Democrat candidate. Third party candidates are important to be there for what America values. It values letting people have their own opinions, and allows them to be able to express it. Who knows, maybe third party candidates will have more of a chance in the future. 

The Effect of Freedom of Responsibility

Freedom with responsibility is a very important value. It has changed as America has changed, but nonetheless; it is a key to living a balanced life. After the tragedy of 9/11, some responsibilities have been taken from the people along with their freedoms to provide safety. The nation has to be careful to when taking away these freedoms. In the novel 1984, the people are given almost no freedom, and therefore are given almost no freedom. “Big Brother” watches the protagonist Winston, and everyone else in the community. They are punished if they don anything the government doesn’t like. Freedom with responsibility allows the people to change their government because they are allowed to with their freedoms, but also because it is their responsibility to do so. Without freedom, there is no responsibility, and without responsibility the people don’t know what they are hurting when they use their freedoms. 

9/11, the Tragedy that Changed America

September 11th, 2001 is a infamous tragedy that transformed America into a much more cautious nation. Before the terror attack on 9/11, a lot more responsibility was given to the people in trade for certain freedoms. People could walk with their loved ones, and friends up to their gate to watch them depart. They could carry normal portions of shampoo and other liquids. I found a quote from Jason P. Stadtlander in the Huffington Post that really struck me. He wrote that after 9/11, "we couldn't afford to be innocent anymore." This represents freedom with responsibility because before 9/11,  they had precautions to prevent anything bad from happening, but did not assume that anyone was guilty of crime before being convicted. After 9/11, it is almost like we cannot afford the risk, so we have to go through an outrageous amount of security before we are finally accepted as innocent. After all these check points there still are many watching eyes to see if anyone does anything suspicious. It is meant to keep us safe, but almost feels as if they are assuming that we are guilty before we commit an offence. Now we have to go through a lot of security check points which forces us to show up in 1-3 hours in advance to our flight.
 After I did research on September 11, 2001 I have realized that freedom with responsibility does not work on an individual basis. Most people in America have done nothing to make themselves suspicious enough to be put through so much scrutiny in the airports, but the actions of few have made it so all of our freedoms are reduced. The government decided that it gave too much responsibility to the people so it took away some freedoms. We the people of the United States are looked upon as a large group. We all individually and as a group represent the American people, and when the government decides how much freedom is to be given to us; it is decided by looking at us as a group. September 11th changed how freedom with responsibility works in America , and the nation will never be the same.

Freedom with Responsibility Quotes with my Responces

"The meaning of the term 'responsibility' can vary. In some situations, the responsible choice is obvious, like being responsible enough to not drink and drive. In other situations, you must be more responsible, such as with your child, with your income, or with your business. Success at any scale will come with a level of responsibility."
-Emily Ma

Emily Ma expressed her thoughts on what freedom means to her; I thought this quote was a very important one. All of the responsibility that Emily talks about comes from freedoms. Some freedoms, for example, are to drive or to be in charge of a child. These freedoms come with very important responsibility to the lives of yourself and others. Other freedoms are less evident, but it is still important to have them. These small freedoms also come with great responsibility.

 

.        .        .

 



"Freedom makes a huge requirement of every human being. With freedom comes responsibility. For the person who is unwilling to grow up, the person who doesn't want to carry his own weight,  this is a frightening prospect."
-Eleanor Roosevelt

Eleanor Roosevelt truly understands the consequences of freedom with responsibility. She says in the quote that freedom is not free. The cost of freedom is responsibility, and there is no way going around this. Freedom with responsibility may not be for everyone because maybe not everyone can handle the responsibility that comes with freedoms, and this may frighten some.

Freedom with Responsibility, First Thoughts

Freedom with responsibility can mean a lot of different things to different people and how free you actually are can vary as well. I believe that freedom with responsibility is a key part of freedom itself. Total freedom would actually be a bad thing. It would allow people to do anything they wanted, even if it hurt others. In a world of total freedom, criminals would be allowed to continue committing crimes, and the innocent people in the community would be hurt as a result. Freedom with responsibility keeps a community safe because there are consequences if the freedom is not used in a judicial way. It can be seen in many different places. Freedom with responsibility can be seen in the United States government, as it can also be seen in Rock Bridge High School. In the United States government, freedom with responsibility can be seen as part of the core ideals that the nation was built on. The USA was created so people could be freed by the oppression they felt by the British, but to also create a civilized place where the people could live without having to fear the problems that could come along with total freedom. The answer is freedom with responsibility. This allows the people to live like they want, but they also have certain obligations to meet. An example of this would be that in America, we free to go and buy things from almost every store, but we are not allowed to steal things from these stores. This practices responsibility because we do not have something that directly prohibits us from stealing at the moment, but there are consequences for neglecting our responsibility that come on after committing the crime. In RBHS we also practice freedom with responsibility. An example of freedom with responsibility in Rock Bridge High School would be our dress code. Some people would say that there isn't any dress code at RBHS, but really we have to practice responsibility to show up to school in any clothes at all. If RBHS had no dress code at all, kids could go to school naked, so yes, even in our free-for-all-seeming dress code at Rock Bridge, there still are responsibilities we must keep. Freedom with responsibility is mostly seen as something placed on the community, but I also see it as something that applies to our government as well. The US government has to allow us to have our rights as United States citizens, but also has to tell us what our responsibilities are. Arnold Toynbee said, "As human beings, we are endowed with freedom of choice, and we cannot shuffle off our responsibility upon the shoulders of God or nature. We must shoulder it ourselves. It is our responsibility." I believe that this quote goes to even a deeper level of freedom with responsibility. We are allowed as humans to make choices in our own lives. These choices will not be chosen for us. No one else cannot make your choices for you because the burden of responsibility is the price of freedom. You cannot have freedom and also be free of all responsibilities and consequences. In everyday life we all make choices, the good and bad ones both come with consequences. Freedom with responsibility could also be seen as freedom with consequences because, for example, if you decide to exercise your freedom of speech and speak out against something you don't like, the consequence could be good. On the flip side, if you make poor choices, there could be a bad consequence as result. Abraham Hicks wrote, "Stop giving other people the responsibility for the way you feel, it's the only place you're ever going to find freedom." This is an intriguing  quote because it relates to the broader definition of freedom with responsibility to a smaller, more internal example. Within ourselves, we have the freedom to chose how we feel, and giving other people the power to chose it for us takes our freedom away. Freedom with responsibility is debatable. You could ask, how free can you be in a community ruled by freedom with responsibility? A person could even debate what the true definition of freedom with responsibility really is because, truly, it really can be up to yourself to create your own definition and it can look very different in other communities. Freedom with responsibility is a delicate thing that could be taken away, as seen in many dystopian novels, but it is also a forceful part of our communities that gives us the will to be prideful in ourselves, others, and what we have done to change ourselves for the better.