Persuadable Voters

I found this lecture to have been one of the best all quarter for a variety of reasons. First off, she was non-partisan, which was a nice change from previous speakers. Politics can be a very sensitive topic and it was nice to have a lecture that focused on politics as a whole, not just one side or issue. She also was a very polished public speaker, which made a huge difference for me. It is much easier to stay focused and really listen when someone’s speech flows fluently and I thought she did a great job at that. Being a visual learner, I liked her use of graphs and charts because they were the perfect complement to her speech. She was very professional, yet relaxed at the same time, which makes for a good lecture combination.

Going on what Sarah said, I also found it very interesting that certain amendments are chosen based on their ability to attract voters who are passionate about the subject and otherwise might not bother to vote. I think this kind of reflects what a dirty game politics can be. Everyone always has an ulterior motive and things are never just how they seem. I understand it is done to increase voter turnout but it seems like people are playing games with our futures and constitutional rights.

I really learned a lot from this lecture about the small and little things about this election and elections in general. Besides the fact this election has a 72 year-old man, an African-American, and a woman, I was surprised to learn that only 2 senators have been elected to President and we are guaranteed a 3rd this November, which truly makes this a rare election. I was shocked that something like being first on a ballot gives a candidate a better chance to win but the more I thought about it, the less surprised I was about it. We live in a country where people choose a candidate based on whether the candidate “is like one of us”, so its not that surprising that people would pick the first name they come across (still a little sad though).