DeeAnn_Angela
Dec 30, 2011
Undergraduate / 'Jazz band / Election day / Perfect school' - Common App/Gettysburg [3]
I was just wondering if I could have these looked over...I'm obviously new to applying for college and I have very little idea as to what colleges are looking for XD Any help is greatly appreciated! :)
Short Answer--Briefly elaborate on one of your activities.
Band has been a huge part of my life. I have become a reasonably accomplished flute player. In fact, I have made first flute, first chair in concert band for the past four years and have been accepted into the PMEA District 8 band twice. When I was a sophomore, I took up the trombone (I taught myself for the most part) and joined the EHS Jazz Ensemble. I have continued to be active in Jazz band since then. In fact, I just recently made first flute and fourth trombone in the WHS Jazz band. This year, I also had the opportunity to join the Williamson Marching Warriors and to travel to several field show competitions and parades. Attending Williamson has also given me the chance to learn to play the piccolo, and I will be performing the piccolo part of Robert W. Smith's "Pergatorio" in our spring concert and possibly in competition. My sophomore year, I was elected to be band president and this year I serve as secretary.
Essay- Topic of your choice (This is an essay I wrote for my comp class, and I got a high grade...thoughts? Should I go with a different topic?
America: Land of the Free, Home of Diluted Democracy
The right to vote, the right of an average citizen to have control over the government, is one that is considered to be very sacred in the United States. Hundreds have died for it, and minorities of all kinds have fought for suffrage. Americans take pride in the fact that they choose their own leader; however, after the controversial election of former President Bush in the year 2000, many began to ask questions about the American electoral process. If U.S. citizens truly elect their Commander in Chief, why was Al Gore (the candidate with the plurality of votes) not the 43rd president? Many Americans would be surprised to discover that the presidential election differs from every other election for public office in America in that it is not decided by popular vote. Instead, the winner of a presidential election is the candidate who wins the majority of "electoral votes" in a process called the "Electoral College." When a citizen enters the booth on Election Day to vote, they are not actually voting for a president at all. In reality, citizens vote for "electors" who, in turn, cast their own ballots for president (which may or may not reflect which candidate actually got the plurality of the vote in the state). The number of electors that represents each state is equal to the number of representatives and Congress people that serve the state in Congress. Initially, this policy was devised by the framers of the Constitution to appease the representatives from smaller states (who were afraid of being constantly outvoted by more populous states such as Virginia), among other reasons; unfortunately, every single one of those reasons cited by the framers to keep the Electoral College is now sorely outdated. The Electoral College was conceived in a time before the current two-party system. In the modern world of politics, the Electoral College merely divides the American nation, which prides itself on its indivisibility, into "red states" "blue states" and "swing states." Perhaps the most cited argument of those in the pro-electoral college camp is that the Electoral College still serves the main purpose that it was intended to serveïprotecting the interests of those living in rural areas and minorities. In a country where every individual is born with the power and the right to make a difference, however, would it not protect the interest of those groups better if the playing field was leveledïone person, one vote? Clearly, using the Electoral College as a means to elect the President of the United States is an outdated process which causes much more harm than good.
When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, they stated that the Electoral College should be used in order to solve four main problems. First of all, that "Citizens residing in distant or less populous states would not be familiar with the candidates and would likely vote only for those candidates who hailed from their own state or region" (Rich and Newton 1). With the advent of the televised debates and campaign websites, this is hardly an issue anymore. A voter living hundreds of miles away from any campaign trail is now able to learn about a candidate as easily as a voter living in Washington, D.C. itself. The second reason stated was that "The large slave population in the South was unable to vote, and thus that part of the country, though populous, would be under-represented" (Rich and Newton 1). This argument is obviously null in a time where slavery is abolished and every citizen older than eighteen has suffrage. The third reason cited by the founders is not as easy to write off. According to the framers of the constitution, "A direct election could imbue the office of the president with too much perceived power" (Rich and Newton 1). At first glance, this seems to be a perfectly viable argument, even today. After all, the thirst for power and the abuse thereof is a timeless issue; then again, when one considers the other precautions that the framers set in place to avoid such abuse, it becomes clear that they over-compensated. It makes sense that they wouldïthe men who wrote the constitution had lived their entire lives under an oppressive government, and they had a real fear that this "president" would quickly become just another king. With the elaborate system of checks and balances that holds the American government together there is no need to be afraid of a president becoming power-hungry simply because he or she was elected by a popular vote. Even if that was the case, the American people would not stand for itïpresidents have faced impeachment for far less. Clearly, when one places the reasons for having an Electoral College under modern scrutiny, they simply do not hold up.
Since the 18th century, proponents of the Electoral College have clung to one argument more tightly than any other, that, according to them, it protects the interests of small states because under a popular vote, well-populated areas have more votes; however, looking at it from that angle, as if states are either republican or democratic entities, is entirely un-American. This nation is made of individuals, of extremely diverse people living side by side in supposed harmony. Each of those individuals has a right in this country to participate in their government equally, and it is impossible for them to do so under the Electoral College. In fact, due to electoral votes, a person's vote in a small state can have as much impact as three or four votes in a larger state. If it is a level playing-field between small states and large states that people want, it makes much more sense to treat people as people, not as just part of a state--one person, one vote. This watered-down version of democracy that has been the rule in this country for the past two-hundred years is not protecting anyone.
Not only do the ostensible reasons for the Electoral College not make any sense in a modern context, but the whole process is, in some ways, a direct attack on democracy that goes mostly unnoticed. Under an Electoral policy of voting, citizens have much less say in which candidate gets their vote than they realize. In reality, they do not get to vote directly for a candidate at allïwhen a citizen votes in a presidential "election," they are actually voting for an "elector" who, in turn, casts their vote for them. The problem with this is that, in most cases, the elector's name does not appear anywhere on the ballot. Not only that, but the elector is not under any requirement to vote for any candidate according to the constitution. In fact, only two states in the entire union require electors to vote for the winner of the popular vote in their district. This means that the highest "elected" office in a country of millions is chosen by a few hundred people who are elected by people who, often times, do not even know the names of the electors let alone anything about their politics. When one examines from this angle, the presidential election process of America sounds as if it is practiced in some oppressed country where fixed elections are the norm, not in a nation considered to be a champion of freedom and democracy.
Regarding this disharmony between those cherished American ideals and the election process, Barbara Boxer said, "Every citizen of this country should be guaranteed that their vote matters, that their vote is counted, and that in the voting booth, their vote has as much weight as that of any CEO, any member of Congress, or any President." This is how the majority of Americans feel. In spite of that, it is not the reality as long as the President continues to be elected via the Electoral College. While the founders had their reasons for creating the system, those reasons simply do not apply two-hundred years later. In fact, the Electoral College makes it impossible for America to be called a true "democracy" by anyone who understands how the Commander in Chief of this nation is elected. This is a time of great reform in this country, and if America is going to continue to be the model of a democratic republic, of a free nation, the election process needs to be one of the items to be mended. The most practical and most effective way to do this mending is obviousïabolish the Electoral College.
Gettysburg Supplement-- How did you become interested in Gettysburg College?
As an intended history major from Pennsylvania, it made perfect sense to include Gettysburg in my college search. After visiting and researching the school, it became very obvious that Gettysburg would be the perfect fit for me. The history, the environment, the small class size, the relative location to home, the opportunities to stay active in music and theatre, the beautiful campus, the huge array of activities and way to be involved--all of these things, some of which I hadn't even been particularly looking for in a school, seemed to add up to Gettysburg being the perfect school for me.
I was just wondering if I could have these looked over...I'm obviously new to applying for college and I have very little idea as to what colleges are looking for XD Any help is greatly appreciated! :)
Short Answer--Briefly elaborate on one of your activities.
Band has been a huge part of my life. I have become a reasonably accomplished flute player. In fact, I have made first flute, first chair in concert band for the past four years and have been accepted into the PMEA District 8 band twice. When I was a sophomore, I took up the trombone (I taught myself for the most part) and joined the EHS Jazz Ensemble. I have continued to be active in Jazz band since then. In fact, I just recently made first flute and fourth trombone in the WHS Jazz band. This year, I also had the opportunity to join the Williamson Marching Warriors and to travel to several field show competitions and parades. Attending Williamson has also given me the chance to learn to play the piccolo, and I will be performing the piccolo part of Robert W. Smith's "Pergatorio" in our spring concert and possibly in competition. My sophomore year, I was elected to be band president and this year I serve as secretary.
Essay- Topic of your choice (This is an essay I wrote for my comp class, and I got a high grade...thoughts? Should I go with a different topic?
America: Land of the Free, Home of Diluted Democracy
The right to vote, the right of an average citizen to have control over the government, is one that is considered to be very sacred in the United States. Hundreds have died for it, and minorities of all kinds have fought for suffrage. Americans take pride in the fact that they choose their own leader; however, after the controversial election of former President Bush in the year 2000, many began to ask questions about the American electoral process. If U.S. citizens truly elect their Commander in Chief, why was Al Gore (the candidate with the plurality of votes) not the 43rd president? Many Americans would be surprised to discover that the presidential election differs from every other election for public office in America in that it is not decided by popular vote. Instead, the winner of a presidential election is the candidate who wins the majority of "electoral votes" in a process called the "Electoral College." When a citizen enters the booth on Election Day to vote, they are not actually voting for a president at all. In reality, citizens vote for "electors" who, in turn, cast their own ballots for president (which may or may not reflect which candidate actually got the plurality of the vote in the state). The number of electors that represents each state is equal to the number of representatives and Congress people that serve the state in Congress. Initially, this policy was devised by the framers of the Constitution to appease the representatives from smaller states (who were afraid of being constantly outvoted by more populous states such as Virginia), among other reasons; unfortunately, every single one of those reasons cited by the framers to keep the Electoral College is now sorely outdated. The Electoral College was conceived in a time before the current two-party system. In the modern world of politics, the Electoral College merely divides the American nation, which prides itself on its indivisibility, into "red states" "blue states" and "swing states." Perhaps the most cited argument of those in the pro-electoral college camp is that the Electoral College still serves the main purpose that it was intended to serveïprotecting the interests of those living in rural areas and minorities. In a country where every individual is born with the power and the right to make a difference, however, would it not protect the interest of those groups better if the playing field was leveledïone person, one vote? Clearly, using the Electoral College as a means to elect the President of the United States is an outdated process which causes much more harm than good.
When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, they stated that the Electoral College should be used in order to solve four main problems. First of all, that "Citizens residing in distant or less populous states would not be familiar with the candidates and would likely vote only for those candidates who hailed from their own state or region" (Rich and Newton 1). With the advent of the televised debates and campaign websites, this is hardly an issue anymore. A voter living hundreds of miles away from any campaign trail is now able to learn about a candidate as easily as a voter living in Washington, D.C. itself. The second reason stated was that "The large slave population in the South was unable to vote, and thus that part of the country, though populous, would be under-represented" (Rich and Newton 1). This argument is obviously null in a time where slavery is abolished and every citizen older than eighteen has suffrage. The third reason cited by the founders is not as easy to write off. According to the framers of the constitution, "A direct election could imbue the office of the president with too much perceived power" (Rich and Newton 1). At first glance, this seems to be a perfectly viable argument, even today. After all, the thirst for power and the abuse thereof is a timeless issue; then again, when one considers the other precautions that the framers set in place to avoid such abuse, it becomes clear that they over-compensated. It makes sense that they wouldïthe men who wrote the constitution had lived their entire lives under an oppressive government, and they had a real fear that this "president" would quickly become just another king. With the elaborate system of checks and balances that holds the American government together there is no need to be afraid of a president becoming power-hungry simply because he or she was elected by a popular vote. Even if that was the case, the American people would not stand for itïpresidents have faced impeachment for far less. Clearly, when one places the reasons for having an Electoral College under modern scrutiny, they simply do not hold up.
Since the 18th century, proponents of the Electoral College have clung to one argument more tightly than any other, that, according to them, it protects the interests of small states because under a popular vote, well-populated areas have more votes; however, looking at it from that angle, as if states are either republican or democratic entities, is entirely un-American. This nation is made of individuals, of extremely diverse people living side by side in supposed harmony. Each of those individuals has a right in this country to participate in their government equally, and it is impossible for them to do so under the Electoral College. In fact, due to electoral votes, a person's vote in a small state can have as much impact as three or four votes in a larger state. If it is a level playing-field between small states and large states that people want, it makes much more sense to treat people as people, not as just part of a state--one person, one vote. This watered-down version of democracy that has been the rule in this country for the past two-hundred years is not protecting anyone.
Not only do the ostensible reasons for the Electoral College not make any sense in a modern context, but the whole process is, in some ways, a direct attack on democracy that goes mostly unnoticed. Under an Electoral policy of voting, citizens have much less say in which candidate gets their vote than they realize. In reality, they do not get to vote directly for a candidate at allïwhen a citizen votes in a presidential "election," they are actually voting for an "elector" who, in turn, casts their vote for them. The problem with this is that, in most cases, the elector's name does not appear anywhere on the ballot. Not only that, but the elector is not under any requirement to vote for any candidate according to the constitution. In fact, only two states in the entire union require electors to vote for the winner of the popular vote in their district. This means that the highest "elected" office in a country of millions is chosen by a few hundred people who are elected by people who, often times, do not even know the names of the electors let alone anything about their politics. When one examines from this angle, the presidential election process of America sounds as if it is practiced in some oppressed country where fixed elections are the norm, not in a nation considered to be a champion of freedom and democracy.
Regarding this disharmony between those cherished American ideals and the election process, Barbara Boxer said, "Every citizen of this country should be guaranteed that their vote matters, that their vote is counted, and that in the voting booth, their vote has as much weight as that of any CEO, any member of Congress, or any President." This is how the majority of Americans feel. In spite of that, it is not the reality as long as the President continues to be elected via the Electoral College. While the founders had their reasons for creating the system, those reasons simply do not apply two-hundred years later. In fact, the Electoral College makes it impossible for America to be called a true "democracy" by anyone who understands how the Commander in Chief of this nation is elected. This is a time of great reform in this country, and if America is going to continue to be the model of a democratic republic, of a free nation, the election process needs to be one of the items to be mended. The most practical and most effective way to do this mending is obviousïabolish the Electoral College.
Gettysburg Supplement-- How did you become interested in Gettysburg College?
As an intended history major from Pennsylvania, it made perfect sense to include Gettysburg in my college search. After visiting and researching the school, it became very obvious that Gettysburg would be the perfect fit for me. The history, the environment, the small class size, the relative location to home, the opportunities to stay active in music and theatre, the beautiful campus, the huge array of activities and way to be involved--all of these things, some of which I hadn't even been particularly looking for in a school, seemed to add up to Gettysburg being the perfect school for me.
