This affects how each party chooses to inform the public, wanting people to agree with their point of view instead of the opposing party. This causes many political ads to be greatly biased, resulting in hesitation from the public to immediately take action. Political parties are careful not to offend any of the general public, in order to bring in as many voters as possible. Speeches, Rallies, and conventions (developed by parties and led by the candidate of the election) are carefully conducted to leave a certain impression (influence) on the audience. This also happens through the media ( news, internet, magazines).
However, in one way not all young people do. Some young teenagers have political apathy where they are uninterested in the political world. A survey taken by two teenagers for the BBC News shows that most of the young people they talked to didn't want to vote or wanted anything to do with politics. Additionally, young people may actually abuse this right to vote as they may not be aware of what each political party offers or which they truly want to vote for, and therefore would be uneducated and so, uninformed. The fact that they may not appreciate the right means that it would be possible for young people to affect the way the country is run where this could be negative, especially if they are ignorant.
2. What is it about the documentary that is supposed to appeal to the target audience? The fact that the documentary is about an election, younger children and teens would really be as interested as they are so young and wouldn’t understand what is going on as much as adults who have experienced the whole ‘election’ procedure before. 3. Does the documentary successfully appeal to the target audience?
Assess the importance of TV debates in US presidential elections [15] Many critics of TV debates would argue that they are not greatly important. Contemporary commentators now argue that presidential debates, since their conception have had any serious impact on the outcome of any election. For many of the general population, the debates will have very little effect because they think that hours of dialogue does not make for good TV, a key example of this is John Kerry who was widely regarded as having won all three of his debates in 2004 against George W Bush but did not receive a bump in opinion polls. Another remarkable factor of the presidential TV debates is how news outlets and the media have a tendency to highlight a specific moment, often a gaffe, and make this the top story, such as George HW Bush repeatedly looking at his watch making him appear bored or as if his time was more important elsewhere. All the debates offer is an opportunity to see a President laid bare without the constant media spin and give the American public an opportunity to decide what to focus on.
These politicians justify their actions by saying they are performing the people’s will because the people voted for them, thus the people support everything that politician does. The reality is most people don’t vote and those that do may be single issue voters, ignorant voters or full-fledged party backers. But, it is misleading at best to claim anyone has a political mandate to pass bad legislation. Regardless of the issue or one’s position it would be impossible to say that an apathetic voting populous, largely ignorant on the individual issue at hand took a stand on election day by voting for one party or by not voting at all and thus, providing a
There are pros and cons for public speaking, some cons are if people speak too much, it could jeopardize the security of our country. The establishment of free speech for all citizens is a successful political strategy for everyone; for people who disagree with those in power as well as those who agree. Allowing free speech adds to the marketplace of ideas, and keeps society involved in important issues. If there was not public speech there would be no media, or newspaper, people wouldn’t be informed about things that concern or help citizens. Some individuals are afraid to protest, because people don’t agree with the government, can become dangerous and get out of control, and they can even danger themselves as well as the safety, property, and lives of
Americans do not care about have integrity as long as they win. Winning is the ultimate goal and it does not matter what do they do to succeed. A student, which Mark Clayton interviews, states that college students cheat because although it “[may] not be a good answer, but none the less it is an answer.”(198). The problem with this philosophy is that people expect integrity from others even when they lack it themselves. For example, students expect teachers to grade fairly even though they plagiarized the work they are handing in.
This song does an amazing job of getting that message out there. Instead of trying to offer some useless quick-fix for all the world's problems, Mayer has really captured the big picture of what's going on in our culture with this song. I believe that Mayer meant this song as a commentary on our generation's political beliefs. In an age where the older generation does not believe that we have anything valuable to add to society either because we are too young, too inexperienced, or both it is hard for any of us to stand up and say that we believe in this or that we think that that is wrong; but by saying, "One day our generation/is gonna rule the population/so we keep waiting on the world to change," he is also saying that eventually we are going to have the power to run this world and when that time comes we have the option to can change it, or not change it. I am sure our generation will change the world; hopefully it’s for the better.
Isolation would not make the citizens happy because some countries do not have all the appropriate resources to live comfortably in a modern world. For example, there is North Korea. This country is completely isolated from the rest of the world, and the citizens are often forced to do things they do not want to do. They must "worship" the country's leader and will get serious punishment if they get caught saying bad thing about him, not following other rules, etc. The citizens do not get the appropriate health care either because they do not have access to experienced doctor's from other countries.
Firstly, consulting the electorate on specific policy matters relies on people making well-informed decisions about complex and often specialist matters. One could argue that the general public simply do not understand the intricacies of politics and government enough to make the right choices about running the nation – and therefore that the experts who we elect and rely on as part of our current democracy should continue to represent the electorate in making these decisions. The 2011 referendum on AV was widely criticized for the lack of information available to and certainly used by voters, and many argue that had people better understood the issue, they would have voted differently. Another argument about the unreliability of referendums concerns campaigning. As seen with AV in 2011, the ‘No’ campaign was better funded and better supported which majorly affected the referendum’s outcome – one can argue that wider use of referendums will put even more political decisions in the hands of the rich and influential, detracting from democracy.