Gerrymandering Within Congress

"Gerrymandering is at least partly to blame for the lopsided Republican representation in the House. According to an analysis I did last year, the Democrats are under-represented by about 18 seats in the House, relative to their vote share in the 2012 election. The way Republicans pulled that off was to draw some really, really funky-looking Congressional districts.

Contrary to one popular misconception about the practice, the point of gerrymandering isn't to draw yourself a collection of overwhelmingly safe seats. Rather, it's to give your opponents a small number of safe seats, while drawing yourself a larger number of seats that are not quite as safe, but that you can expect to win comfortably. Considering this dynamic, John Sides of The Washington Post's Monkey Cage blog has argued convincingly that gerrymandering is not what's behind the rising polarization in Congress."

It is interesting to me how this paragraph describes gerrymandering in such a way that it is not responsible for the sharp division within the political parties, when by definition gerrymander is when politicians change or manipulate the boundaries of their voting districts in order to benefit themselves or their political party.  According to The Monkey Cage blog the author does not believe this is the reason behind the rising polarization in Congress, if politicians being able to manipulate districts is not the cause, then what would the reason for it? 

I chose this section of the article because it seems that gerrymandering is a hot topic in terms of its responsibility and the role it plays in Congress. For example, "to give your opponents a small number of safe seats, while drawing yourself a larger number of seats that are not quite as safe, but that you can expect to win comfortably." If a party is able to demonstrate such a huge dominance, than this is unfair especially for the other parties since there is no guarantee that they can or will regain control. For something so concrete, political, balanced, and important as our government it seems as though with gerrymandering everything is up in the air without no promise and main control lies within the politicians boundaries. Ultimately, I agree with The Monkey Cage blog because there would have to be more then just gerrymandering to determine the congressional districts. 

Civil Disobedience

Thoreau was very conscious in which respect for laws or traditions and mores can easily turn into a mechanical and unthinking submission to whatever the authorities may be:

The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army; and the militia, jailers, constables, posse comitatus, etc. In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgement of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well. Such command no more respect than men of straw or a lump of dirt. They have the same sort of worth only as horses and dogs. Yet such as these even are commonly esteemed good citizens (p. 223).

Henry David Thoreau was the was the author of the essay "Civil Disobedience" in which he strongly believed that breaking the law and challenging the authorities was the right thing to do if these laws were unjust. Although he rebelled against those unjust laws the main purpose of his essay was for everyone to act without committing any violence. This quote relates to the lecture text because Thoreau becomes aware on how the authority has the abuse that these laws. He states in this quote that  "The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies." He is trying to explain that people are following the law but being brainwashed into the system and not viewing how the government is using them as tools. Thoreau rebelled by not paying his taxes and going to jail because he will not support how the government will not do good with all this money. 

I chose this piece by Thoreau because it revolutionized how people should respect the law but also stand for what they believe in if its unjust. Furthermore, because of how he goes about it, which is a non-violent approach. This movement has inspired many historical activist such as Malcolm X, and Dr Martin Luther King to respect the laws but also make sure is equal and fair for everybody. 

 

The Legislative Branch

"The Legislative branch is entrusted with making all laws for the country and is composed of two branches: the House of Representatives and the Senate. Representatives are drawn based upon the population of the state. Larger states with larger populations have more representatives. Also if the population of the state increases past a certain point it will gain more representatives (or lose them if the population decreases). Representatives are drawn from different districts drawn up by the states who also control the laws for voting in their respective states. All bills for raising revenue are supposed to originate with the House since it is the more democratic branch of government. Because of its size the position of a Speaker for the House is created as well. The Senate is composed of two senators from each state regardless of size. This was intended as a compromise to give smaller states more equality in government. Senators were originally chosen by the state legislature, and not by the people directly, that lasted until the Progressive era in 1913."

The goal for the Legislative branch was to create the house of representatives and senate with the purpose of forming the United States Congress. Although there were two branches to make the congress; each would serve different purpose in constructing laws around the states. For example, The house of representatives is made to spread within the 50 states. A total of 435 elected members. The main purpose of the house of representatives is to pass the laws across the states. Another important factor was that, the bigger the state was; it was allowed to have more representatives. On the other hand, you have the senate. The senate would consist of two senators for each state. The senate will also be responsible for the denunciation and approval to their arrangements. 

These two branches are very important in the population of the different states because they have multiple responsibilities on how each state is run. Without the representatives and the senate, the states individually will not be able to run smoothly, there would be chaos within the people. The senate and representative's give structure to each state, that is why it is important that the people in each party are chosen correctly to represent each state. 

Power

"In this essay, Bachrach and Baratz are concerned with analyzing political power. The concept of power is a central concept in political science, but its meaning is not always clear. Power is usually understood as a relationship between people, not an individual quality that someone possesses. Since power is defined as a relationship between people, power is by definition a social relation. Part of the reason this article is so influential is because they begin from a previous discussion regarding the nature of power between sociologist C. Wright Mills and Robert Dahl, a leading "pluralist theorist" in political science."

Bachrach and Baratz help us view the concept of "power". Their conclusion of power is defined as being a "relationship between people, not an individual quality that someone possesses". Bachrach and Baratz referred their discussion on the nature of power comparing and contrasting between sociologist C. Wright Mills and Robert Dhal. In 1956 Mills wrote his most famous work was "the power elite". His piece stated that "political power was a close knit group made up made up of government bureaucracy, the military, and corporate elites". In other words Mills defined political power as a dominating force but in a "one dimensional sense". On the other hand, Bachrach and Baratz leaned heavily on Dahl "pluralist theory", because just like Bachrach and Baratz; Robert Dahl believed that power is divided into different groups to reach the greater goal for all. Moreover, "pluralist argued that Mills ignored empirical evidence that shows multiple groups are able to exercise some power over each other, power is defined as influence in the law-making process or decisions made by the government". 

This passage is very interesting to me because growing up I have always believed that power is dictated by one leader. In which they control and call the shots on their own. It seemed like I have been following Wright Mills theory of "power elite". What I have learned reading this article is that Bachrach, Baratz, and Robert Dhal were right about how power is a relationship with people. Many men and women have the courageous attribute to step up and be great leaders. Referring back to some of our great movement leaders such as Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, and even all our presidents have their parties whether it is republicans or democratic. Now on the other hand, there are some leaders that may have bad intentions and use their power to do evil and dominate at will. In conclusion, is true to say that nobody will gain any power without the relationship and their connection to the people and society as a whole.