Level Of Ignorance Or Credibility?

One reason why Americans shouldn’t be required to vote is because voting without background information might lead to wrong decisions. Evidence supporting this reason is, in document G (New York Times) (Randy Cohen) states that people that are uninformed, will end up voting for something that doesn’t endorse their interests. This evidence helps explain

Based on Hedge’s iconic statement that “the most essential skill… is artifice”, one can infer that politicians use narrative as a strategy to increase their following. This causes controversy among the audience who may only decide their candidate through a subliminal message therefore empathizing with the candidate rather than voting based on their intellect and opinions. While it may seem as regular propaganda, it is a tool to deceive the viewer. Although it may be a compelling strategy, artifice creates a barrier between the politician and the audience making the politician unable to connect with his followers.

In the context of 1996, where Richard Harwood claims the average American admits to more knowledge of what actors are on television programs, rather than the people that have been voted in or appointed to represent them in local and national government, The average American voter feels alienated. These voters are alienated to an extent of which they feel they have very little ties to the political system of that time. Harwood references a much older document that illustrates the modern day plight among the voters. He does so to say that this problem isn’t one that is new, but is one that has caused trouble for a long period of time.

Voters are the key to elections, a politician cannot win if no one votes for them. The ways Jeff took in order to gain voters were considered the grassroots campaign where the politician would go door to door, to introduce themselves, discuss the candidates views and goals when voted in, and to persuade potential voters to vote for him. Jeff did the new media form to gain voters, in the book, it discusses how new media is a good avenue to take for a faster response from voters. New media involves, telecommunication, email and use of social media to name a few. Using the new media form, Jeff was able to connect to everyday people and gain their attention quicker because he presently there, his volunteers and him would call the voters, in return gained a following because the other political were using their name as a means to win and the traditional form of media to connect to voters. Traditional media includes the use of the newspaper and the classic political debate. Big name politician in this election almost lost in this election because they did not try to connect more with the people, now you see politicians always with people, either giving a speech, going door to door, using social media more to connect. But whenever using social media or the internet always be mindful of when things go up and what response will come out of posting, so many candidates have media consultants to help keep a positive media

Television has been influential in America’s elections since the 1960’s, and as TV continues to grow, so will the influence it has over the people. Many people believe whatever comes on their television screen, and don’t think twice to counteract the information. As America continues to televise presidential elections and politics pertaining to that, the elections will be frequently unfair and biased, the candidates won’t be able to completely focus on what’s important, like their imagine instead of their ideas. Television may give more substantial access to millions of more people, but that could change that end result of the presidency for better, or for worse.

King argues that the decline in voter turnout is attributed to disinterest in politics and presidential candidates. The article goes

As politics and government becomes more complex and involved, more effort is required to keep up with and understand it. As a result, many Americans have lost touch with current events and happenings. Therefore, when election time rolls around, many people lack enough information to develop an educated opinion and support a candidate with their vote, so they just do not vote at all. This lack of information is also related to the belief that one vote will not matter. People believe that their vote will not count, and are therefore following the news less and becoming out of touch with public affairs and politics (Is the System Broken?”). This lack of information is also more strongly apparent among the younger voting population. When interviewed

The door knockers who were also of the younger generation and mainly college students used the scripts of civic duty and that the race was very close. The study suggested that the younger group may have been mobilized to vote by the door knockers who were also in this same age group. The study found that the civic duty script had a slightly higher outcome. The study showed that mobilizing voters wasn’t very good. It was however noted that this was a high profile competitive election with many others from the candidate campaigns, the political parties, and other interest groups also conducting direct mailings, television ads, and door knockers. Thus those that had been assigned to the treatment group of this study to receive no contact had been contacted by others also out campaigning.

After reading the article, “The dumbing down of voters,” by Rick Shenkman, I was first shocked by his claim that public has an immense lack of knowledge concerning politics. But the more I thought about the claim the more I realised the truth about the statement. Many people in the United States are oblivious to what the government is doing and who is a part of the government. The lack of knowledge from the public is also unsettling because if the public doesn’t know basic knowledge like what are the three branches of government, then the country could take a turn for the worst. Voters are also giving out their votes to presidential candidates that local newspapers focus on because they either are too lazy or ignorant to think for themselves

Television is a form of communication that can be used to transfer information to the general public, and its full value and effects can be seen at all times, especially during election seasons. To some extent, this medium has helped people make informed decisions on which candidate is suitable to be president. However, this positive influence could distract people from focusing on policy and turn the election into a popularity contest.

The invention of the television has had an impact on all aspects of American's lives. It has affected how we work, interact with others, and our foreign relations. One part of American society that it has especially affected is presidential elections. Television has impacted who is elected and why they were elected. Since the 1960's television has served as a link between the American public and presidential elections that allows the candidate to appear more human and accountable for their actions; consequently this has made television a positive influence on presidential elections. But it has also had a negative affect on elections, making presidential candidates seem like celebrities at times and making it easier to publicize mistakes

Media is known as the “king maker” for many reasons, such as shaping candidates in audience’s perspective. Television has been a big influence in shaping voters choice and labeling political parties, even though some believe media information can be scant in regards to candidates. Media can be anything from television to social media networks and how many people think that media is a great influence, some also think it can be a problem. “It only takes 140 characters to damage a political campaign” in which Smith is referring to social media as being a problem. (Smith, K. 2011. Pg. 9) At the state and local levels party affiliation remains the most important. “In television age, journalist became the chief influence in the selection of candidates

Television campaign advertisements are greatly effective in swaying voters and strengthening support. Advertisements that sway voters are effective because they portray a sense of urgency and a threat to public safety. These advertisements are helpful for the candidates, however, they often exaggerate and contort the truth. Throughout the years of 1952, 1960, 1962, 1964, 1968 and 2016 political advertisements have begun to pander to voters by utilizing this negativity and voters do not analyze the advertisement any further. This paper discusses the effect negative advertisements have on voters and includes a general discussion on the efficacy of television campaign advertisements in the years mentioned.

In sharp contrast to past elections when candidates campaigned in-person, the 2016 election has been significantly mediated through mass media. With such a large influence on voters, the media not only determines which issues and events are salient in voters’ minds, but also how voters evaluate candidates. Moreover, media coverage, depending on its content, can influence whether voters think about candidates in terms of campaign issues or candidate attributes.

In this hypothesis, the logic presented is that, the more a politician can spend on his campaign, the more his name and ideas will get out to the public; therefore the greater his chance of being elected. The independent variable is the amount a politician spends on his campaign which affects the dependent variable, the greater the chance he has of being elected. When a politician’s name is presented often through means of television ads or signs, the more likely his constituents are to remember his name come Election Day. This increases his chance being elected over an opponent who is unknown