Blog Stage Five

How Gerrymandering Limits Our Voice

By Alyson Valdez

Have you ever asked yourself how significant your vote in politics really is? How much influence do we actually have when it comes to who becomes our leaders? There is one aspect affecting our current voting patterns, and that is gerrymandering - the manipulation of boundaries in favor of one party or another. Because of gerrymandering, we are limited to the delegates in our district (whom include and exclude certain voters) ultimately resulting in a bias and restricted vote.

Ideally, district populations should be approximately the same size so every vote matters, communities should stay together ensuring every voice is heard; and since populations shift and change, district lines should be redrawn every census. Although the lines are, in fact, recreated every census, they are not drawn to benefit the voter’s, rather the politicians who are drawing the lines. If we contrast North Dakota and Colorado, district lines vary drastically - this is because North Dakota is small enough to be defined as one district, whereas Colorado is large enough to split into 7 districts. This method makes sense if a state is large enough; however, the problem arises when politicians exclude certain voters by creating illogical districts, in order to improve their chances of winning. By doing so, the voters have no choice who represents their district, meaning politicians basically choose their voters instead of the citizens choosing their representatives. 

Furthermore, there are four techniques to gerrymandering: cracking, packing, kidnapping, and hijacking. If one party is more popular than the other among voters, a simple solution is to crack the district by ensuring there are more voters for a single party in each area. If the opposition is wider-spread on the map, politicians will pack similar voters into one district. Additionally, if a politician is competing for a popular incumbent’s seat, drawing the district line to exclude them (kidnapping/hijacking) is one way to increase their chances of winning. Politicians can even exclude, for example, minoirites from their district if they are not willing to work for their votes. Because of these methods, incumbents are 95% likely to be re-elected into the House and 80% in the Senate. Although gerrymandering works for the politicians, it is unfair manipulation, and it leaves the citizens with a weaker voice. 

The idea that politicians have the power, let alone the right, to organize voters to benefit their campaign seriously limits our voting voices, and our influence. Not everyone is being heard, and those who are might be limited to choices not in their favor. With that being said, it’s the responsibility of the government to exile gerrymandering and implement the short-lining method when dividing boundaries - this means using the shortest possible lines to evenly divide the districts. Furthermore, politicians should not have the right to manipulate their voters, otherwise, who is really choosing the people who lead us?

Blog Stage Four

“Kick Trump Out”

By Alyson Valdez

“Citizens Must Remove Trump From Office,” by Wim Laven, is an article emphasizing the idea that we as citizens must take responsibility for the people in our office. Laven illustrates the negative effects elicited by Donald Trump by explaining what type of person he is, as well as the actions he has taken while in office. Laven’s main argument is that U.S citizens need to take action and exile these toxic influences before it is too late. 

Laven begins his defense with the reference of the currently popular hashtag “OutNow,” which ultimately stands for, “We refuse to accept a facist America!” He adds that protests are scheduled in support of this idea, stating that it is necessary for us to stand up when the system of checks and balances fail. Laven then expands on the abuse that continues to occur in the White House; for example, Trump paying people to keep his secrets, misdirecting military fights, altering weather maps, and convincing foriegn leaders to spread rumors about his opponents. “It is numbingly fraudulent and as corrupt as any banana republic ever was, the First American Kleptocracy” (Laven). 

Not only does Laven list some of Trump’s offenses, he also emphasizes how they put us in danger. He uses the entrapment of children at our Southern border and the slaughtered Kurdish children at the Turkish-Syrian border as two examples, and explains how Trump’s actions seem to reflect the support of Putin (and himself) rather than the country he is leading. Wim Laven further states that Trump and his foriegn allies have rigged the system, leading to the prevention of votes from the public as well as the Supreme Court! Laven pulls together his argument by saying, “The implications of such corruption exaggerating the demise of climate protections and demoratic institutions are a horror I do not want to imagine.” 

All in all, Wim Laven presents a decently strong argument as he advocates for citizens to stand up. His use of evidence illustrates the toxic behavior of our leader, as well as the effects that it has on the citizens of America. Furthermore, Laven reaches a significant audience (specifically those of the newer generations) by emphasizing the responsibility of citizens to take action and the genocides that will occur if we don’t. 

Blog Stage 3

Can MDMA Improve Our Learning?
By Alyson Valdez

In “Psychedelics as a Path to Social learning,” Alison Gopnik discusses how the use of psychedelics could help treat illnesses, such as PTSD and anxiety. She successfully supports her argument by showing the results of MDMA studies on mice, emphasizing how the drug influences early openness to experience and abilities to learn from social information. 

Gopnik also includes information about “plasticity” (the ability for the brain to learn from new experiences) and how there are “sensitive periods” of plasticity for certain things, like language and the visual system. Alison continues to defend the beneficial use of MDMA by portraying the differences between young mice and adult mice, emphasizing how younger mice with higher plasticity moved towards colors that were associated with social experiences, while adult mice stayed stagnant. However, after dosing the adult mice with MDMA, their ability to learn over the weeks continually increased. Gopnik effectively defends the benefits of MDMA by comparing the mice’s ability to learn before and after the drug. 

Additionally, Alison emphasizes how MDMA allows people to feel especially close to those around them due to its ability to enhance serotonin and oxytocin, two chemicals involved in happiness, social closeness, and trust. 

The main question is, should the national government take actions towards legalizing MDMA for medicinal purposes? The FDA has already approved further studies on the benefits of this psychedelic; Gopnik seems to think it would be beneficial for openness, learning, and therapy - and I’m right there with her.