Panel Discussion Room V219 – Introduction to Comparative Politics

The professors in the panel discussed the results of the 2024 elections, focusing on the dynamics between the Democratic and Republican parties. They touched on three significant issues: abortion, taxes, and foster care.

The professors shared political perspectives, including concerns that some view Donald Trump as a threat to democracy, particularly in the context of supporting Black and Latina communities. One professor highlighted the impact of eligible voters who do not participate in elections, emphasizing that higher turnout could significantly alter election outcomes. They mentioned that Republicans often have a higher voter turnout compared to Democrats, and taking non-voters seriously could reshape political landscapes.

Professor Shawna Brandle pointed out that no political party in the U.S. is likely to cut social security. She also compared voting practices in the U.S. to India, where people receive two days off work to vote, which contributes to a markedly different voter turnout. Changes in voting legislation since 2020, such as early voting options in New York and pre-registered voters in California, were also discussed.

Another professor focused on voter turnout and how parties could influence the opinions of the 90 million eligible voters who didn’t vote. They explored how political parties could change outcomes if they engaged this group effectively.

Professor Shawna Brandle also mentioned mass deportation policies, while another panelist reflected on how Hillary Clinton’s loss in 2016 was partly due to voter disengagement. The discussion concluded with the question of whether the government serves the majority or minority, sparking thoughts on the role of inclusivity in politics.

Best

Muhammad Khan

One Comment

Muhammad

November 21, 2024 at 2:53 pm

I realize I made a mistake in my initial response, so I would like to add more info here about my case study countires

In Australia, voting is mandatory, which means everyone has to vote. This is very different from the U.S., where voting is optional. If the U.S. had a system like Australia’s, maybe more people would vote, and elections would be more fair. In Afghanistan, though, voting is harder because of war and instability, so many people can’t vote freely or safely. This is very different from the U.S., where people have more freedom to vote, even if they don’t always do it.

From the discussion, we learned that having more people vote can help make elections better and fairer. The ideas from the panel connected to what we are learning in class about how different countries, like Australia, Afghanistan, and the U.S., handle voting in different ways. These discussions show how important it is for people to be able to vote in a way that represents everyone.

Muhammad

November 21, 2024 at 2:53 pm

I realize I made a mistake in my initial response, so I would like to add more info here about my case study countires

In Australia, voting is mandatory, which means everyone has to vote. This is very different from the U.S., where voting is optional. If the U.S. had a system like Australia’s, maybe more people would vote, and elections would be more fair. In Afghanistan, though, voting is harder because of war and instability, so many people can’t vote freely or safely. This is very different from the U.S., where people have more freedom to vote, even if they don’t always do it.

From the discussion, we learned that having more people vote can help make elections better and fairer. The ideas from the panel connected to what we are learning in class about how different countries, like Australia, Afghanistan, and the U.S., handle voting in different ways. These discussions show how important it is for people to be able to vote in a way that represents everyone.