I believe the Democratic Party comes closer to reflecting the ideals of mainstream America since it is addressing the basic needs of the people first and focusing inside the country's needs before going elsewhere.
Compulsory voting does have its strengths and weaknesses. By requiring citizens to vote and punishing them with a fine if they fail to may really solve the problem of declining voter turnout. More voters means more civil participation in the electoral process. However, forcing to do what they not to do is stifling one's freedom of choice. Moreover, this will result to a need to amend the constitution and consider the system to have "partial" democracy instead of democracy in its truest sense. The Bill of Rights will need to be changed too, limiting one's freedom of choice.
I do not believe in compulsory voting. The reasons for the decline of voter turnout must first be addressed. One of the reasons may be because the people just do not find a better choice among the options so they choose to abstain rather than choosing the lesser evil.
Chapters 16 & 26
I believe that everything must be done in moderation, that is, anything in excess is always detrimental. Control should be applied. Gun rights groups like the NRA have their own positive reasons for criticizing safety locks and the lack of proof that control of gun sale could reduce crime rates. On the other hand, the gun control advocates have reasons for their cry to put certain limitations to the use and sale of guns. It is partly true that certain crimes result from indiscriminate sale of guns.
I think I am more of a gun control advocate because I value my life and the lives of those I love. I want to know why people need to own guns in the first place. Is it for self defense alone' If so, then there authorities who keep the peace and order condition of the community. In addition, guns are not the only tools for self defense. Indeed, the causes for crimes must also be put into consideration. Life is too valuable to be risked.
Some people believe that having cameras in the courtroom fulfills the country's need for both free access to information and a "check" on the behavior of the judiciary to keep it from extremist behavior. However, the U.S. Supreme Court does not allow cameras in its courtroom. This is also true in the federal courts. Only audio recording and transcripts are allowed. Media personnel are allowed inside the courtrooms too. According to the media people, the "public's interest would be best served by allowing such coverage." I think the restraint of not allowing full media coverage of court proceedings secures the on-going cases until they are given verdict. Moreover, it prevents the issue to be highly sensationalized and controversial. I think the present system of allowing the media people in the courtrooms and giving them the audio tapes and transcripts of the proceedings is proper and in itself a form of transparency.
In my opinion, at present the Congress is