Politics is about 'organizing' the structure of the 'Political Institution of the State' and protecting the 'Freedom and Equality' of the Individual.

The 'State' or the Nation is an Institution. The organization of the functions of the State is what we call "Democracy or democratic". A Democracy is a government "of the People, by the People, and for the people". Politics relates to the 'means' by which democratic principles are instituted into the everyday functions of the State. The 'People as a whole', and 'Individually', benefit from the institution of democratic principles into the 'Bottom" of the Institution of the State. Politics is a competition between Individuals. Who will occupy the 'Offices' that 'represent' the People? Hence, politics should be a 'political means' by which to educate the People about the many 'democratic improvements' to be instilled into the social; to better 'perfect, and or, improve democratic structures'. Today, unfortunately, Politics has been reduced to personality attacks between candidates for Office. Of course, 'political correctness' has long used democratic language to 'compete' for election, but the terminology was too 'general', and 'abstract' and 'never really registered' in the psyche of the People. That's why the People welcomed an election that 'strikes' at so called 'political correctness'. However, candidates are too concerned with personality attacks, instead of improving the Democratic structure. How sad; that reflects on the 'mentality of politics' in a democracy. When candidates become 'insincere' about occupying political Offices, democracy is in trouble. Every candidate should propose 'improvements of the democracy', in a clear understandable manner. Lacking that, he or she should not be in 'politics'. The Freedom and Equality of every Individual is at stake. Democracy is about 'the People'; and the Individuals who strive to 'represent' the People, should be 'strongly aware' of the 'Representative nature' of the Office they seek. All Individuals should be acutely aware that we 'must live' in a 'condition of togetherness' ( that makes politics necessary) and that the State exists only because it 'has a People'. Without 'People', the State has no need to exist. Without the State, we have no need for 'Politics'.

The Media is important in Democratic politics, but 'politics' does not 'truck' in Truth.

The media play a very important part in political campaigns. Recent news that some candidates " lie, and do not tell the truth", is ridiculous. There is no "truth" in politics, there is 'only', or 'maybe', or 'possibly', a 'political correctness', but the question of "Truth" plays no part in politics. Even Philosophy, psychology, cosmology, Religion, and many other 'disciplines, are still trying to determine what 'formulations' within there 'belief system', may constitute the 'Truth'. To accuse a politician of not telling the 'Truth', and lying, is ridiculous, and can only be attributed to the media coverage, of those events, as highly prejudicial. The media is doing what they are accusing the candidate of doing. The level of language-use in politics can only be 'correct or incorrect'; and even 'that' has become highly suspicious. But 'political correctness' and 'political language' does not 'truck' in Truth. Media is very important in a Democracy, but it cannot twist words around to create a specific effect that causes damage to 'Politics' or to 'political candidates'. Certainly 'honesty' is necessary in a Politics but, it must be kept within the domain of the "political sphere". Politics is about 'Representation'; a politician can only 'represent' the People. The 'Peoples' concern is with the "representative ethics' of the Politician and not with a 'candidates' ability to answer questions about "Truth". That's the most difficult and confusing question that anyone can be asked. What kind of 'truth' is being referred too? Politics does not truck with 'Truth' as a philosophical quest. What kind of question is that? The question can be asked in a political manner, but it should not be asked in a 'confusing' manner. Even the questioner does no know what the Truth is; hence the question is 'intentionally deceptive' and 'prepared' to cause damage. The Media has a duty to be as 'Objective' as possible. hence, it must use language to report both sides of the political spectrum, but it must use a grammar and a language that reflects the 'antagonistic nature' of the exchange, especially in 'Politics'.

The 'essence' of Democracy is 'its People'; hence, they have a Right to vote. Make voting easier.

The essence of Democracy is 'its People'; its essence includes 'each and every Individual' that constitutes 'the Governed'. Democracy is inseparable from the People it governs. The Government itself is constituted of 'its People'; the Legislature is constituted of 'its People'; and the Judiciary is constituted of 'its People'. Autocracy 'rules' people; Democracy doesn't rule, it 'governs people', or stated differently, it governs 'itself'. Hence, the electoral process becomes an important part of the Democratic process. That's why elections and the Right to vote is vital. Of course, everyone will say they know that. Well, then why not make the electoral process more democratic by allowing all those who have a Right to vote, to do so by mail or by computer. This would 'soften' the effects of 'gerrymandering'( that should be outlawed), and would allow all the qualified voters to express their preference from the 'safety' of their home. Some States allow voting by mail, so why not extend that 'privilege' to all States, and also include, voting by 'computer'. This would eliminate 'inconveniences' at the polls; traveling to the polls; and fighting inclement weather. Instead of the citizen finding 'a way' to vote, the Government must 'insure' that every citizen has expressed his/her preferences. Many States make voting difficult; the Government has a duty to 'facilitate' the exercise of that privilege; not to create difficulties. Democracy is Government "of the People"; "by the People", and "for the People"; hence Government is duty bound to use every new 'technology' to facilitate the voting process, and not to make it problematic. Government already requires voters to be 'registered'. Well, then allow the registered voters to vote by mail, by computer, by phone, or any other manner made possible by the advances in technology. Instead, 'Democracy' is still using the 'old fashion manner' of 'voting',i.e., citizens are required to overcome physical difficulties; health problems; age problems; storms, floods; tornado; snow; property damage; and 'getting' to the Polls'; where they are 'met' with 'other difficulties'. If Democracy is the best form of Government, let the People speak. Voting should not be 'old fashioned', in a modern, technologically advanced, Democracy.

Society, may advance technologically; but, the Individuals Constitutional Rights cannot be circumvented.

Society has made great technological advances in media, phones, and computers. Individuals rely on these 'advances' to 'store', send, and use personal and private information. Lately, many business institutions have been illegally 'hacked', to the detriment of the business, and also to the loss of personal information, credit card information, social security numbers, etc., of the clients involved. Clearly, an illegal act and that's understood by everyone; even by law-enforcement. Government has a duty to 'govern' but not to violate the Constitutional Rights of its citizens. But, the question arises, is anyone, especially Government, entitled to get behind the 'privacy' provided by these advances in technology? It should be obvious to everyone, especially Government, that if enforcement agencies cannot 'Unconstitutionally search' a human individual, it 'cannot' be acceptable to 'search' the technologies being used by the Individuals to store private information. So how can Government; or the F.B.I.; or the Courts, compel a business Institution that deals in these technological 'advances', compel that business to provide a 'back door' in the technology, for the purpose of unlawfully 'searching' for personal information? How can 'unlawful searches' of an Individual be 'Constitutionally prohibited', and unlawful searches of 'technology', 'not be' prohibited? That's ludicrous; not to mention Unconstitutional. Government has Power, but its a Power granted by the People. The People do not grant Government the Power to violate the Constitution; nor to allow encroachment into 'personal matters stored and encrypted' within the 'advances of technology'. Government cannot compel 'Unlawful Searches and Seizures' of the Individual; nor Unlawful Searches and Seizures of the 'technology' used by the individual; and it can't compel the building of 'back doors' in the technology, to facilitate illegal acts by the Government. Its all the 'same' and its all Unconstitutional. Government has Power; but, not Unconstitutional Power.