Assignment 10/25/14

"...it seems likely that both the degree of party competition and a state's system of legislative apportionment would affect its readiness to ac- cept change. It would seem that parties which often faced closely contested elections would try to out-do each other by embracing the newest, most progressive programs and this would naturally encourage the rapid adoption of innovations."- page 885, The American Political Science Review, Jack L. walker

This passage is basically pointing out on how the possible reason as to why certain states are more innovative that others is because the political parties have stayed constant, as to when there is competition there seems to be more encouragement and pressure for politicians to do innovative things.  Each political party would try to out-do one another and offer different ideas which can be a good thing for the country since it would offer choices.  In this way it would encourage for people and politicians to become faster adopted to innovation.

I chose this passage because I thought it was a very valid reason as to why innovation happens and also because I have noticed the different approaches that the politicians running for governor use.  If one looks at the websites of the candidates one can see the difference in approaches.  It seems that the present governor, (Cuomo) seems to be taking a more laid back approach towards the elections that are to come, and his opponent (Astorino) takes an approach that is more on the offense side.  Cuomo seems to be looking for more supporters, making use of his history to show possible voters of what he has done and is capable of doings, as for Astorino he is criticizing the actions of Cuomo, Astorino is attempting to use opposers of Cuomo and turn them into his supporters.  Overall I found it interesting because it is something relevant at the time, and I think it can go both ways, we can either stay and make progressive adoptions to more innovative ideas, or we can switch and backtrack, it is a vise versa thing.  I just found it very relevant.

Assignment 10/4

"The First Federal Congress rewrote and consolidated the amendments Madison proposed. These framers had no idea how important the amendments would become. Nor did they, or anyone else at the time, call the 12 amendments Congress proposed in September 1789 or the 10 the states ratified by the end of 1791 a “Bill of Rights.” That came later. Much later." -"Revisiting the Constitution: Rewriting the First Amendment."

     This piece basically points out how much of the constitution was written without the thought that they would be come fundamental in the every day lives of Americans.  The authors point is to kind of outline the importance revisions some things, since on her view there was not enough thought out behind the amendments.  She points out on how the constitution was a thing that was taken from some people who didn't consider the importance of the said amendments.
   
     I chose this piece because to me it seems kind of silly for her to say such things. Thought I have to agree that such amendments didn't take upon the modern world, I don't think they didn't consider the possibility of these becoming important bases for the United States.  I think that there are certain things that need to be updated in the constitution, however one cannot simply dismiss the importance of the basic amendments.   There needs to be some point of intersection in where we don't completely dismiss the original ideas, but that we do moderate them.  However they have to be relevant to today's problems.  We cannot simply change something because we want, if something is working it should be left alone.  In conclusion I don't exactly agree with her point of view, and her idea slightly unnecessary.