I think that blogging started off as a great idea, but as the semester got going, it lost its effect. The part that I found the most annoying was trying to respond to two blogs each weeks, especially because most people didn't blog, or didn't blog until 11PM on Sunday. I think that if you continue to have people respond to blogs, you should make the blogs due on Saturday and have the responses due on Sunday... that way people can get their responses in.
I think that blogging was a good alternative to a paper. For one, it gave us a number of chances to think about questions that may be on an exam. It was also nice because it took only a couple of hours a week, rather than a huge midterm paper that would take up much more time. Overall, I think blogging was a good experience.
I think that I deserve an A. For one, I am one of very few people who blogged on time every week. In addition, I responded to two blogs every week. I put a lot of thought into my blogs, and connected articles and pictures to almost every single blog. I tried to make my blogs interesting so that other people could respond to them, and I think for the most part people responded to mine.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Will this be the year?!?!
Why don't young adults vote? It seems so peculiar to me that they are often the first one's to open up their mouths to complain about stuff, but they are the last ones to go vote on election day. I CONSTANTLY hear people complaining about the high cost of tuition, the high cost of books, blah, blah, blah... but come election day, is anything done? No. People my age are too lazy to get to the polls, so why would the candidates for ANY office listen to them? Not only do we not get out and vote, but we also don't make campaign contributions... neither time nor money.
As the article points out, our age COULD be the swing vote. We could finally get a candidate willing to listen to us, but we have to get out and vote. The article says 60 percent of people our age think we are headed in the wrong direction with the war in Iraq. Our age group is also the one's FIGHTING in Iraq. If we want anything changed, it is simple, make them listen.
Unfortunately, no matter how much people like me preach, no matter how many people you try to get to register early and remind to vote, less than 50 percent of people under 30 will vote in 2008. Could this finally be the year that we wake up? Probably not, but we can at least hold out hope.
As the article points out, our age COULD be the swing vote. We could finally get a candidate willing to listen to us, but we have to get out and vote. The article says 60 percent of people our age think we are headed in the wrong direction with the war in Iraq. Our age group is also the one's FIGHTING in Iraq. If we want anything changed, it is simple, make them listen.
Unfortunately, no matter how much people like me preach, no matter how many people you try to get to register early and remind to vote, less than 50 percent of people under 30 will vote in 2008. Could this finally be the year that we wake up? Probably not, but we can at least hold out hope.
Saturday, December 1, 2007
Critical Eras
A critical era occurs when a stable era is interupted by a critical election, one that arouses unusual intensity and interest and that changes voting patterns substantially, followed by another stable era. According to "Why Parties" by John H. Aldrich, the first critical period occurred in 1790 with the formation of the first parties (Aldrich 279). The most recent critical period occurred in the 1960s with the political realignment of southern blacks to the democratic party. However, many people believe that the 1990s was also a critical era, and that the 1994 election was the critical election. After reading the attatched article by Aldrich, I would agree.
As we discussed in class, some key elements of a critical era are elite generational transitions, a change in public belief and action (in particular party identification), and changing relations between the people and the elites. The candidates in the 1990s went from the World War II veteran to the Vietnam veteran. Instead of a glorified war hero, dissenters and those who oppossed the conflict rose as the elite candidates. Party identification was marked by stronger partisan ties, a reduction in split ticketing, and a trend of the public being able to tell distinct differences in the two parties. In addition, as Aldrich points out, incumbency was not as strong as an advantage as it had been since the 1960s. The relationship between the public and the elites changed drastically due TV advertising and, most importantly, the internet. Candidates could now reach the public easier and did not depend on the help of the party as much. In addition, partisan realignment was seen with the 1994 Republican take over of the house. After reading Aldrich's article, it is obvious to me that the 1990s was indeed a critical era, though it may not have been as dramatic of a era as the 1960s.
I also think that we are in a stable era. I could not find any articles on this, so I'm going to go off of my own observations and hope that feedback from others will correct me if I'm wrong. The candidates, as we saw in the 2004 election, are still the Vetenam vets... who could forget all of the mudslinging about that?!?! Partisan ties remain strong, and are on a rise. People can still tell distinct differences between the two parties, and there have not been any major realignments. One problem with my theory that this is a stable era would be the 2006 election when the Republicans lost Congress to the Democrats. However, I still think that there is overwhelming support for us being in a stable era. However, I do know that this next election will be very competitive and it may end up being the critical election for this era.
As we discussed in class, some key elements of a critical era are elite generational transitions, a change in public belief and action (in particular party identification), and changing relations between the people and the elites. The candidates in the 1990s went from the World War II veteran to the Vietnam veteran. Instead of a glorified war hero, dissenters and those who oppossed the conflict rose as the elite candidates. Party identification was marked by stronger partisan ties, a reduction in split ticketing, and a trend of the public being able to tell distinct differences in the two parties. In addition, as Aldrich points out, incumbency was not as strong as an advantage as it had been since the 1960s. The relationship between the public and the elites changed drastically due TV advertising and, most importantly, the internet. Candidates could now reach the public easier and did not depend on the help of the party as much. In addition, partisan realignment was seen with the 1994 Republican take over of the house. After reading Aldrich's article, it is obvious to me that the 1990s was indeed a critical era, though it may not have been as dramatic of a era as the 1960s.
I also think that we are in a stable era. I could not find any articles on this, so I'm going to go off of my own observations and hope that feedback from others will correct me if I'm wrong. The candidates, as we saw in the 2004 election, are still the Vetenam vets... who could forget all of the mudslinging about that?!?! Partisan ties remain strong, and are on a rise. People can still tell distinct differences between the two parties, and there have not been any major realignments. One problem with my theory that this is a stable era would be the 2006 election when the Republicans lost Congress to the Democrats. However, I still think that there is overwhelming support for us being in a stable era. However, I do know that this next election will be very competitive and it may end up being the critical election for this era.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Iraq
It is hard to deny the failure Iraq has proven to be. "Our troops continue to fight and die valiantly. And our Treasury continues to be depleted rapidly, for a peace that we seem far more interested in achieving than Iraq's own political leaders," said Reid, D-Nevada. So why hasn't anything changed? It is clear that support for the Iraq War is shrinking every year (see polling report). Why has the new Congress not done what it promised in bringing an end to this war?
Congress has been trying to force troop withdrawals by refusing funding to the war without a timetable for removal of troops. However, they have not garnished enough votes to override President Bush's veto, so that has proven impossible. How much longer does our executive branch plan on fighting a war it should not have started in the first place?
What is amazing to me, and Mr. Tofias pointed it out in lecture yesterday, is that most American's cannot even see the division between the Iraq War and 9/11. Tim McGraw's song "Have we forgotten" is perfect propaganda for this... "Have we forgotten, how our towers fell..." No, we have not forgotten, but we are not avenging that any longer. I support our efforts in Afghanistan against the Taliban, but have we forgotten about our soldiers there? How often do we here about Osama Bin Laden and our troops fighting in Afghanistan? Not very often.
In my opinion, we rushed into this war without an understanding of the most crucial facts. We did not have an understanding, or we did not respect the fact, that a muslim country does not believe in our democratic institutions. We had to get the bad guy out of power, right? Well, we better start invading North Korea, Iran, Sudan, Somalia, should I continue with the list? We cannot force our ideals through military actions. We cannot continue to be the watchdog, especially when our motives are not as innocent as the administration would like us to believe (oil is the obvious reason for invading Iraq, not liberating the people from Hussein). Oh yeah, what about the Taliban... they are in Iraq and we need to destroy them, right? Oh wait... Hussein was AGAINST Islamic fundamentalists and it wasn't until we entered Iraq that they did. So, not for 9/11, not for the Taliban, we cannot possibly rid the world of all 'evil' rulers, so what for then... why continue this war?
I commend our new Congress for standing up to this war as long as they have. If the Department of Defense wants to continue this blood bath, then I agree with Congress (first article) that they should fund it themselves. "We need to get our troops everything they need," said Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky. "We need to get it to them right now." What they need is to come home... right now. I have a former Marine, his name is Mike (I will leave his last name out as I promised not to use it) in a history class of mine. He served and was injured in Iraq. This actually ended up being the best thing that could have happened to him he said because 18 months after he and his friends returned they, minus Mike, were sent back to Iraq. Two of them were killed. He supported the war at first, but after serving he understands that this is not a battle we can win. Two of my cousins said the same thing, and believe it or not they are Republican (shocking, I know). After serving two tours in Iraq, they understand that this war has gone on long enough.
Twelve billion. That's the amount of money we are, roughly, spending a MONTH to fund this war. Our federal defecit is continuing to rise (see website below)-though the administration doesn't like to talk about this fact. On top of that, Bush proposes tax cuts!?!?! Yes, taxes suck. But they are part of living in a democratic society. Public services and government do not fund themselves, the money must come from somewhere. Wouldn't it be nice to take that 12 billion dollars a month and put it to better use, like healthcare, feeding the poor, reduced prescription prices for the elderly, curing Cancer, etc.?
I know that the Iraq war is a touchy subject for many people. I am in no way trying to put down the troops who have fought bravely and died bravely for our country. It is time to bring them home, that's how I support them. The only thing we can do now is count our loses and accept the fact that we were all guilty of diving headfirst into a baby pool. This scenario is just all too familiar... Vietnam anyone? I refuse to believe that our government will let this drag out 10+ years only to find out nothing has changed............
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/16/iraq.funding.ap/index.html?iref=newssearch
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
href=
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
Congress has been trying to force troop withdrawals by refusing funding to the war without a timetable for removal of troops. However, they have not garnished enough votes to override President Bush's veto, so that has proven impossible. How much longer does our executive branch plan on fighting a war it should not have started in the first place?
What is amazing to me, and Mr. Tofias pointed it out in lecture yesterday, is that most American's cannot even see the division between the Iraq War and 9/11. Tim McGraw's song "Have we forgotten" is perfect propaganda for this... "Have we forgotten, how our towers fell..." No, we have not forgotten, but we are not avenging that any longer. I support our efforts in Afghanistan against the Taliban, but have we forgotten about our soldiers there? How often do we here about Osama Bin Laden and our troops fighting in Afghanistan? Not very often.
In my opinion, we rushed into this war without an understanding of the most crucial facts. We did not have an understanding, or we did not respect the fact, that a muslim country does not believe in our democratic institutions. We had to get the bad guy out of power, right? Well, we better start invading North Korea, Iran, Sudan, Somalia, should I continue with the list? We cannot force our ideals through military actions. We cannot continue to be the watchdog, especially when our motives are not as innocent as the administration would like us to believe (oil is the obvious reason for invading Iraq, not liberating the people from Hussein). Oh yeah, what about the Taliban... they are in Iraq and we need to destroy them, right? Oh wait... Hussein was AGAINST Islamic fundamentalists and it wasn't until we entered Iraq that they did. So, not for 9/11, not for the Taliban, we cannot possibly rid the world of all 'evil' rulers, so what for then... why continue this war?
I commend our new Congress for standing up to this war as long as they have. If the Department of Defense wants to continue this blood bath, then I agree with Congress (first article) that they should fund it themselves. "We need to get our troops everything they need," said Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky. "We need to get it to them right now." What they need is to come home... right now. I have a former Marine, his name is Mike (I will leave his last name out as I promised not to use it) in a history class of mine. He served and was injured in Iraq. This actually ended up being the best thing that could have happened to him he said because 18 months after he and his friends returned they, minus Mike, were sent back to Iraq. Two of them were killed. He supported the war at first, but after serving he understands that this is not a battle we can win. Two of my cousins said the same thing, and believe it or not they are Republican (shocking, I know). After serving two tours in Iraq, they understand that this war has gone on long enough.
Twelve billion. That's the amount of money we are, roughly, spending a MONTH to fund this war. Our federal defecit is continuing to rise (see website below)-though the administration doesn't like to talk about this fact. On top of that, Bush proposes tax cuts!?!?! Yes, taxes suck. But they are part of living in a democratic society. Public services and government do not fund themselves, the money must come from somewhere. Wouldn't it be nice to take that 12 billion dollars a month and put it to better use, like healthcare, feeding the poor, reduced prescription prices for the elderly, curing Cancer, etc.?
I know that the Iraq war is a touchy subject for many people. I am in no way trying to put down the troops who have fought bravely and died bravely for our country. It is time to bring them home, that's how I support them. The only thing we can do now is count our loses and accept the fact that we were all guilty of diving headfirst into a baby pool. This scenario is just all too familiar... Vietnam anyone? I refuse to believe that our government will let this drag out 10+ years only to find out nothing has changed............
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/16/iraq.funding.ap/index.html?iref=newssearch
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
href=
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Who's the most strategic of them all?
Clinton
Hillary Clinton is an obvious strategist. She does what is popular in order to gather the most votes both in the electorate and in the primaries. She follows along party lines, and in some cases tends to be more left than the electorate would choose to be; for example, her health care plan. She has been known to be a flip flopper, especially in cases such as the Iraq war where she once supported it and now speaks against it.
Her campaign image is that she cares for everyone; she's everyone's best friend. She wants to be protrayed as the serious politician that is working to make America a better and happier place. I would say that this is actually a very well planned route to go. She knows when to put her foot down and act tough on issues such as healthcare, while at the same time being very motherly and friendly with opposition, as we all saw in the debate where all of the candidates attacked her. In that debate, instead of being nasty, she responded politely while still making her stance known. I think this is a smart move because her compassion will reach the hearts of Americans, though I'm not sure its enough to get her elected.
As far as electability... I think that in the primary she has very high electability because she has raised a lot of money, she has support from the electorate in polls, and she supports the Democratic party platform. I believe the party sees her as the strongest candidate with the highest chance of being elected president. In the electorate I think she is electable, though she may not be the candidate with the highest electability. I believe because of her flip flopping, many American's see her as going with popular policy rather than setting her own agenda; I believe that this will hurt her chance of being elected president. Also, her far left views on healthcare may also hurt her because, as we've discussed in class, the electorate prefers moderate policy choices.
Giuliani
Rudy is more of a purist than a strategist. His stance on abortion and gay marriage contradicts that of his party, but he is very vocal on his beliefs anyway. He is a policy seeker, even if that costs him the party nomination. He is running under the Conservative platform, but could easily run as a third party candidate because of his social stances. He understands that being part of a major party is crucial to being elected president in our system, so he chooses to run under the Conservative platform while still maintaining his moderate policies.
Giuliani has been doing a great job of building his image around 9/11. To many American's he is responsible for rebuilding the infrastructure and economy of New York post September 11. His image is also very moderate. He is fiscally conservative but more moderate, or even liberal, as far as social issues are concerned. His image is very independent of his party, and very individualistic compared to the rest of the candidates running as conservatives.
Because of his policy stances, I believe that Rudy has a very high electability in the electorate, but not such a high electability in the primary. The Republican party, especialy the Religious Right, is very oppossed to his stance on abortion and gay marriage. Some have even gone as far to say it is better to lose the election and stand by their policy than win an election and lose their platform and ideals. His moderation is very popular in the electorate, but not so much in the party. However, the party may also recognize his popularity and see this as their best option to keep the Republican party in control of the executive branch.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/hillary.clinton.html
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/rudy.giuliani.html
Monday, November 5, 2007
New Whigs
Sweet name, we know.
Our platform is going to be economically conservative and socially more liberal than the current Republican party. We would aim to keep morality less of a central issue. On policy such as gay rights, we would support a more liberal view than the republican party, but less liberal than the democratic party... we would support a civil union. The same idea would hold true for most social issues, we would push for regulated, but legal, abortions. We would support government assistance with healthcare, but not government control. We would advocate for a flat tax based on percentage of income. We would still be strong in defense, but we would focus more on diplomacy and foreign relations/support of our actions.
Our strategy is to get the younger voters mobilized while still retaining a lot of our older supporters. We would focus the most heavily on the swing states and the midwest, but also maintain our relationships with the south. We understand that we will lose a percentage of the religious right, but we would still be more desirable to the religious groups than the democrats. At the same time, we would aim to take moderate votes away from the democratic party.
Our base would be the younger and older crowds and also moderates and minorities.
Our key members would be Denzel Washington and Condi Rice.
Although we understand that we may not be able to pull of a majority of the electoral college in a couple of years, we believe that eventually we will get a majority support.
I do think that change is needed in the system, but I do not think that replacing one party with another will help. I know I continue to bring up this point, but I firmly believe that if we want more accountable parties and we want the electorate to feel more represented, we need more than two parties. I also think that by replacing one party with another, the changes that the electorate seek will not happen. If anything, I believe that a new party will be more moderate. I think that the moderates generally feel represented in our system, it is the extremists that do not. For all of these reasons, I do not think that change is realistic at this point.
Our platform is going to be economically conservative and socially more liberal than the current Republican party. We would aim to keep morality less of a central issue. On policy such as gay rights, we would support a more liberal view than the republican party, but less liberal than the democratic party... we would support a civil union. The same idea would hold true for most social issues, we would push for regulated, but legal, abortions. We would support government assistance with healthcare, but not government control. We would advocate for a flat tax based on percentage of income. We would still be strong in defense, but we would focus more on diplomacy and foreign relations/support of our actions.
Our strategy is to get the younger voters mobilized while still retaining a lot of our older supporters. We would focus the most heavily on the swing states and the midwest, but also maintain our relationships with the south. We understand that we will lose a percentage of the religious right, but we would still be more desirable to the religious groups than the democrats. At the same time, we would aim to take moderate votes away from the democratic party.
Our base would be the younger and older crowds and also moderates and minorities.
Our key members would be Denzel Washington and Condi Rice.
Although we understand that we may not be able to pull of a majority of the electoral college in a couple of years, we believe that eventually we will get a majority support.
I do think that change is needed in the system, but I do not think that replacing one party with another will help. I know I continue to bring up this point, but I firmly believe that if we want more accountable parties and we want the electorate to feel more represented, we need more than two parties. I also think that by replacing one party with another, the changes that the electorate seek will not happen. If anything, I believe that a new party will be more moderate. I think that the moderates generally feel represented in our system, it is the extremists that do not. For all of these reasons, I do not think that change is realistic at this point.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Loyalty
http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/analysis/toons/2007/05/12/lang/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/analysis/toons/2007/10/26/mitchell/index.html
Cartoons are often times funny, but the funniest part about them is how often they are true. The Republican party during the Newt years prided itself on loyalty and a party that was very unified. What happened??? (I am in no way defending the action that Newt took). With candidates such as McCain and Guiliani, the Republican party is expirencing a serious lack of loyalty to the party platform.
With the way the polls have been looking, Rudy Guiliani is leading many of the popular polls. This must leave the Republicans shaking in their boots. Rudy feels as obligated to follow the Republican platform as Bush feels obligated to pass Congress' bills. Will candidates like this eventually lead to the end of the two party system?
I personally think this idea is far fetched. However, if we continue to get candidates who do not feel tied to their parties, and instead move toward a more center platform that accomodates more people, will the parties have the strength in government that they do now? We know that candidate centered elections undermine the party system, but is it possible to go a step further and say that it could lead to the end of the party system? I think it is a possibility.
http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/analysis/toons/2007/10/26/mitchell/index.html
Cartoons are often times funny, but the funniest part about them is how often they are true. The Republican party during the Newt years prided itself on loyalty and a party that was very unified. What happened??? (I am in no way defending the action that Newt took). With candidates such as McCain and Guiliani, the Republican party is expirencing a serious lack of loyalty to the party platform.
With the way the polls have been looking, Rudy Guiliani is leading many of the popular polls. This must leave the Republicans shaking in their boots. Rudy feels as obligated to follow the Republican platform as Bush feels obligated to pass Congress' bills. Will candidates like this eventually lead to the end of the two party system?
I personally think this idea is far fetched. However, if we continue to get candidates who do not feel tied to their parties, and instead move toward a more center platform that accomodates more people, will the parties have the strength in government that they do now? We know that candidate centered elections undermine the party system, but is it possible to go a step further and say that it could lead to the end of the party system? I think it is a possibility.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Assessments are fun
Many people in America, including myself, find the American Party System to be... oh... what's the word... corrupt. Not only are parties unresponsive to the people, but it is ok that they are because no one does anything to stop it. Although I find a lot of things wrong with the system, the fact that they are not responsible to the people is what angers me the most.
In our text, page 220, there is a quote by the APSA from their Article "Toward a More Responsible Two-Party System." This quote says that there must be more than one party because one party will not be responsible to the people. We have two parties, but this does not assure us responsibility! Responsibility can only be achieved through honesty and hard work. Many politcians are seen as "slimmy" individuals who will do anything to get elected. Once in office, the promises for change, for "a new tomorrow" are rarely met. We need politicians who will stand up for what they promise.
We need to look no farther than the Bush administration to understand just exactly how IRresponsible the system is currently. My favorite topic to talk about in this area is presidental signing statements. For those who do not know... signing statements are where the president can interpret a bill passed by Congress (after he has already signed it into law), comment on its constitutionality, or simply write how he feels about the bill. President Bush has used more than any president in history, and more than many of them combined. Instead of using his veto power, Bush signs popular legislation into law-such as the McCain torture ban-and then says something to the effect of "The executive branch does not have to follow this." HOW MUCH MORE IRRESPONSIBLE CAN YOU GET?
Another reason I think the American Party System is corrupt is the number of Americans who do not feel represented by our government. In other democracies around the world, many more parties are represented in their government because of their system of proportional representation. This allows voices to be heard beyond two parties; it represents more of the public. Instead of having to choose between the 'lesser of two evils', people can support politicians that have the same ideals and same policy prefernces. In our winner take all system, you are either on the winning side or the losing side; nearly half of our population is unsatisfied with its representatives.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060113.html
In our text, page 220, there is a quote by the APSA from their Article "Toward a More Responsible Two-Party System." This quote says that there must be more than one party because one party will not be responsible to the people. We have two parties, but this does not assure us responsibility! Responsibility can only be achieved through honesty and hard work. Many politcians are seen as "slimmy" individuals who will do anything to get elected. Once in office, the promises for change, for "a new tomorrow" are rarely met. We need politicians who will stand up for what they promise.
We need to look no farther than the Bush administration to understand just exactly how IRresponsible the system is currently. My favorite topic to talk about in this area is presidental signing statements. For those who do not know... signing statements are where the president can interpret a bill passed by Congress (after he has already signed it into law), comment on its constitutionality, or simply write how he feels about the bill. President Bush has used more than any president in history, and more than many of them combined. Instead of using his veto power, Bush signs popular legislation into law-such as the McCain torture ban-and then says something to the effect of "The executive branch does not have to follow this." HOW MUCH MORE IRRESPONSIBLE CAN YOU GET?
Another reason I think the American Party System is corrupt is the number of Americans who do not feel represented by our government. In other democracies around the world, many more parties are represented in their government because of their system of proportional representation. This allows voices to be heard beyond two parties; it represents more of the public. Instead of having to choose between the 'lesser of two evils', people can support politicians that have the same ideals and same policy prefernces. In our winner take all system, you are either on the winning side or the losing side; nearly half of our population is unsatisfied with its representatives.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060113.html
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Voter Turnout
http://www.idea.int/publications/vt/upload/Voter%20turnout.pdf
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/closerace1.html
This week, we focused a lot of time on voter turnout in America, why it is so low, and things we could possibly do to increase voter turnout. With that in mind, I thought it would be interesting to see if the United States is the only country suffering from a lack of voter turnout. As it turns out, according to the website I found, voter turnout around the world has been going down since about the 1980s. With this in mind, I think it is especially important to understand the reasons why.
The first explanation given by our book is that there is a lack of competition among candidates. Although this holds true for many elections in the House and a number of elections in the Senate, I would disagree that there is a lack of competition in Presidential elections. Especially recently, Presidential elections tend to be very close, as the second website I attached shows. Using this information, I would disagree with this argument as to why voter turnout is so low.
Another reason the book gives for low voter turnout is the expansion of the electorate. After women were given their right to vote, it took many years for them to finally use their right. This would obviously cause a drop in voter turnout, but this was decades ago, so we can eliminate that explanation. In 1971 the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18. Young voters, age 18-25, make up a large percent of the population, but a fraction of them vote. This is an obvious problem for voter turnout. However, I do not personally believe that young adults not voting is alone the reason why voter turnout is so low.
I believe that the number one reason why voter turnout is so low is because of the wasted vote logic. The wasted vote logic is the notion that people do not vote because they do not think their vote matters, they do not think by voting anything they want to change, will. This leads, in turn, to people losing interest in politics as well, which could be another reason for low voter turnout. People age 18-25 especially feel like their voices are not heard in politics because we do not have much power, so this age group is especially vulnerable to wasted vote logic. I find it interesting to ask nonvoters why they chose not to vote. Some people respond with "I didn't have time", "I didn't know where", "I didn't register" (even though Wisconsin is same day registration), and the list continues... but I always seem to find it amazing how many people respond "What does it matter... my vote sure doesn't".
So... my proposal to increase voter turnout is to make the public realize that their vote really does matter. To do this, I think that we need to have parties that involve the public more, and have candidates who actually listen to what the public says... even after they get elected. Making elected officials more responsible to the people, I believe, would increase the voter turnout in America because people would feel like their voices are being heard... rather than Washington being run by the 'political machines and elites', people would feel like they run Washington. It is time to put more power in the hands of the people, and less power in the hands of the elites and political machines.
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/closerace1.html
This week, we focused a lot of time on voter turnout in America, why it is so low, and things we could possibly do to increase voter turnout. With that in mind, I thought it would be interesting to see if the United States is the only country suffering from a lack of voter turnout. As it turns out, according to the website I found, voter turnout around the world has been going down since about the 1980s. With this in mind, I think it is especially important to understand the reasons why.
The first explanation given by our book is that there is a lack of competition among candidates. Although this holds true for many elections in the House and a number of elections in the Senate, I would disagree that there is a lack of competition in Presidential elections. Especially recently, Presidential elections tend to be very close, as the second website I attached shows. Using this information, I would disagree with this argument as to why voter turnout is so low.
Another reason the book gives for low voter turnout is the expansion of the electorate. After women were given their right to vote, it took many years for them to finally use their right. This would obviously cause a drop in voter turnout, but this was decades ago, so we can eliminate that explanation. In 1971 the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18. Young voters, age 18-25, make up a large percent of the population, but a fraction of them vote. This is an obvious problem for voter turnout. However, I do not personally believe that young adults not voting is alone the reason why voter turnout is so low.
I believe that the number one reason why voter turnout is so low is because of the wasted vote logic. The wasted vote logic is the notion that people do not vote because they do not think their vote matters, they do not think by voting anything they want to change, will. This leads, in turn, to people losing interest in politics as well, which could be another reason for low voter turnout. People age 18-25 especially feel like their voices are not heard in politics because we do not have much power, so this age group is especially vulnerable to wasted vote logic. I find it interesting to ask nonvoters why they chose not to vote. Some people respond with "I didn't have time", "I didn't know where", "I didn't register" (even though Wisconsin is same day registration), and the list continues... but I always seem to find it amazing how many people respond "What does it matter... my vote sure doesn't".
So... my proposal to increase voter turnout is to make the public realize that their vote really does matter. To do this, I think that we need to have parties that involve the public more, and have candidates who actually listen to what the public says... even after they get elected. Making elected officials more responsible to the people, I believe, would increase the voter turnout in America because people would feel like their voices are being heard... rather than Washington being run by the 'political machines and elites', people would feel like they run Washington. It is time to put more power in the hands of the people, and less power in the hands of the elites and political machines.
Friday, October 5, 2007
How about the little guys?
I'm not just falling back on this question, I think that the minority party is an interesting thing to research because its important... how much do they really matter? What is the role of the minority party in a democracy?
First of all, I think that minority parties become more important when the majority party isn't as large. For instance, in the Senate currently, the democrats are the majority party, but by less than two seats. If they controlled 10 more seats, they would have a much stronger majority and the role of the minority party would be weaker. I believe this is true because as the majority gets larger, it requires fewer votes from the minority party in order for a bill to be passed, or for a veto to be overridden (if that's a word). Larger minority parties force compromise between the two parties.
With that said, I believe that the minority party, even when it is small, is very important to a democracy. First of all, it gives a voice to the electorate who's party may not have won the majority vote. Secondly, it helps to shape policy with its votes in the legislature. Thirdly, it helps fight corruption. With two parties our system is plagued with corruption, can you imagine what it would be like if there were no minority party to "check" the actions of the majority? I believe that in this sense, and the others listed above, the minority party has a very important role in a democracy.
Our book points out that the length of time a party has been the minority plays an important role, but I would like to disagree with that. I think that regardless of how many years a party is the minority, it is still going to push its policy and fight to be elected. If that were the case, Republicans would have given up on running for House seats back in the 1950s, since it was nearly 30 years before they took control again (according the graph on page 147 of the book).
Do you think that the minority party is important in democracy?
First of all, I think that minority parties become more important when the majority party isn't as large. For instance, in the Senate currently, the democrats are the majority party, but by less than two seats. If they controlled 10 more seats, they would have a much stronger majority and the role of the minority party would be weaker. I believe this is true because as the majority gets larger, it requires fewer votes from the minority party in order for a bill to be passed, or for a veto to be overridden (if that's a word). Larger minority parties force compromise between the two parties.
With that said, I believe that the minority party, even when it is small, is very important to a democracy. First of all, it gives a voice to the electorate who's party may not have won the majority vote. Secondly, it helps to shape policy with its votes in the legislature. Thirdly, it helps fight corruption. With two parties our system is plagued with corruption, can you imagine what it would be like if there were no minority party to "check" the actions of the majority? I believe that in this sense, and the others listed above, the minority party has a very important role in a democracy.
Our book points out that the length of time a party has been the minority plays an important role, but I would like to disagree with that. I think that regardless of how many years a party is the minority, it is still going to push its policy and fight to be elected. If that were the case, Republicans would have given up on running for House seats back in the 1950s, since it was nearly 30 years before they took control again (according the graph on page 147 of the book).
Do you think that the minority party is important in democracy?
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Enough is enough?
By now everyone knows that Bush has promised to veto legislation by Congress expanding health insurance for poor children. Over 5 years, the new legislation would increase the program by $35 billion, or $7 billion a year. Seems to be a very large chunk of change, right? Well, by now everyone should also know that he is demanding from Congress a budget of over $200 billion for the war in Iraq for 2008. Yes, in ONE year he is demanding for $200 billion in tax payers money. So I pose the question, when is enough enough? In my eyes, providing American children with health insurance if their parents cannot afford it is a much better cause than fighting a battle many believe can never be won. The fact of the matter is there is only so much money out there, only so many programs can be funded. How much longer are we going to allow hundreds of billions of dollars to be burnt in the Middle East fighting a war over ideology and oil?
It is time that we start focusing on social issues to better America. Why should any American, in the so called "most powerful nation in the world" suffer and die from simple ailments such as the flu? The answer is simple, they shouldn't. Why should millions of people a year go hungry or freeze to death in America? Again, they shouldn't. But we are so consumed with defense spending that we cannot open our eyes to see the social problems right in our back yards. Yes, defense spending is necessary, but $200 billion is more than a stretch...
With little more than 35% of the country supporting him, are we really willing to continue down this path of destruction? I applaud Congress for holding out and not folding like those in the past when writing the budget... I just hope they can hold out long enough for some sort of compromise to be struck that is more reasonable than $200 billion for the 2008s loss in Iraq.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/26/cong.budget.deadline.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/25/children.sinsurance.ap/index.html
It is time that we start focusing on social issues to better America. Why should any American, in the so called "most powerful nation in the world" suffer and die from simple ailments such as the flu? The answer is simple, they shouldn't. Why should millions of people a year go hungry or freeze to death in America? Again, they shouldn't. But we are so consumed with defense spending that we cannot open our eyes to see the social problems right in our back yards. Yes, defense spending is necessary, but $200 billion is more than a stretch...
With little more than 35% of the country supporting him, are we really willing to continue down this path of destruction? I applaud Congress for holding out and not folding like those in the past when writing the budget... I just hope they can hold out long enough for some sort of compromise to be struck that is more reasonable than $200 billion for the 2008s loss in Iraq.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/26/cong.budget.deadline.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/25/children.sinsurance.ap/index.html
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Primaries
For this weeks blog we are supposed to answer three questions... 1. Are primaries good or bad for democracy? 2. Are primaries good or bad for parties? 3. Are primaries good or bad for candidates?
1. I think that primaries are good for democracies. One thing is certain, they are definately more democratic than the caucus or the party conventions. Primaries take the power away from elites and party bosses and allow the public, who are interested, vote. They also are run by the states, so states can focus on issues and canidates that are more friendly to their needs.
2. I think that primaries aren't necessarily BAD for the parties, but I think that parties would definately prefer not to have them and use the caucus or convention instead. Parties would rather have the control, and primaries take some control away from them. With that in mind, I would say that primaries are generally frowned upon by party bosses who want to control the candidates, platforms, and votes.
3. I would say that primaries are generally good for the candidates, other than the expenses. It gives candidates a chance to get their face out in the media, get their policies heard, and meet the public. Primaries give candidates who would be otherwise relatively unheard of a chance to gain some publicity that they would not otherwise get.
With all of that in mind, the primary type that I believe best serves in the interest of the people and the parties would be the closed primary. This allows people who are interested to vote, while still allowing parties to have some control over the primary. People who are informed on the issues, and are relatively loyal to their parties, can choose to register with a party and vote. It is more democratic than a caucus, but at the same time the party maintains some control because only registered people may vote, and vote for their party-no cross overs. Open primaries, non partisan primaries, and blanket primaries are very bad for parties because there can be a lot of cross over voting, independents running, and the results are not necessarily clear to the parties, for example John McCain in the 2004 election.
1. I think that primaries are good for democracies. One thing is certain, they are definately more democratic than the caucus or the party conventions. Primaries take the power away from elites and party bosses and allow the public, who are interested, vote. They also are run by the states, so states can focus on issues and canidates that are more friendly to their needs.
2. I think that primaries aren't necessarily BAD for the parties, but I think that parties would definately prefer not to have them and use the caucus or convention instead. Parties would rather have the control, and primaries take some control away from them. With that in mind, I would say that primaries are generally frowned upon by party bosses who want to control the candidates, platforms, and votes.
3. I would say that primaries are generally good for the candidates, other than the expenses. It gives candidates a chance to get their face out in the media, get their policies heard, and meet the public. Primaries give candidates who would be otherwise relatively unheard of a chance to gain some publicity that they would not otherwise get.
With all of that in mind, the primary type that I believe best serves in the interest of the people and the parties would be the closed primary. This allows people who are interested to vote, while still allowing parties to have some control over the primary. People who are informed on the issues, and are relatively loyal to their parties, can choose to register with a party and vote. It is more democratic than a caucus, but at the same time the party maintains some control because only registered people may vote, and vote for their party-no cross overs. Open primaries, non partisan primaries, and blanket primaries are very bad for parties because there can be a lot of cross over voting, independents running, and the results are not necessarily clear to the parties, for example John McCain in the 2004 election.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Money, Money, Money
I've been sort of sour about this topic for some time now. I find it embarassing that so much of our electorate system is based on the money a candidate has/is capable of raising. Shouldn't we focus more on the important things, for instance, WHAT THEY CAN DO FOR OUR COUNTRY? Can you imagine what we could do if people were willing to donate that kind of money to charities to feed the poor, cure cancer, find a vaccine for AIDs, etc. It sort of makes me sick to think about it. In the 2004 election Bush raised nearly $370 million, Kerry raised nearly $330 million, and the other candidates together raised nearly $7 million. Doesn't anyone else find this ABSURD? We can't feed the poor, we can't give proper healthcare to Americans, we can't make sure the elderly can have their medication at a decent price, but we can raise nearly $707 million for presidential campaigns! For what... them to stay in hotels, travel the country, and put ads on TV that cause us all to change the channel out of annoyance anyway? A bit ridiculous.
What's even worse is how the parties are playing into this. Parties consider candidates able to raise the most money the most 'worthy' of their vote. COME ON! That has NOTHING to do with ability to lead this country. Look at Bush, the guy raised more money than any president in history, and currently has less than a 50% approval rate among Americans. I find our society to be so driven by money that it hardly sits back and looks at what is more important, like intelligence for example.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/09/15/magic-johnson-raises-money-for-democrat/#more-1973
http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/index_2004.asp
What's even worse is how the parties are playing into this. Parties consider candidates able to raise the most money the most 'worthy' of their vote. COME ON! That has NOTHING to do with ability to lead this country. Look at Bush, the guy raised more money than any president in history, and currently has less than a 50% approval rate among Americans. I find our society to be so driven by money that it hardly sits back and looks at what is more important, like intelligence for example.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/09/15/magic-johnson-raises-money-for-democrat/#more-1973
http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/index_2004.asp
Monday, September 10, 2007
First Blog Continued
Since I thought we were only supposed to answer one of the questions.. I will add the second half of the first blog.
I would say a group of people that is NOT a party would be a group that is not politically and actively involved in the community. For instance... I can form a group, let's say with my roommates, in which we share a love for sports and country music, and we think that there should be a law passed that makes country music the official music of the United States. If we never actively participate in implementing the law, we are nothing more than a group of people that get together to talk about our love for country music. A party should be politically involved in the community, and act to implement laws and such that make the community a better place.
I would say a group of people that is NOT a party would be a group that is not politically and actively involved in the community. For instance... I can form a group, let's say with my roommates, in which we share a love for sports and country music, and we think that there should be a law passed that makes country music the official music of the United States. If we never actively participate in implementing the law, we are nothing more than a group of people that get together to talk about our love for country music. A party should be politically involved in the community, and act to implement laws and such that make the community a better place.
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
First Blog
Kind of a boring name... I will try to be more creative in the future.
What's a party?
In America, we have two main parties; the democratic party and the conservative party. A party is a group of people who share common ideals and follow the same political platform. My definitions/distinctions between the two are as follows:
Conservative: Follow old traditions, more government control of individuals and individual's rights, lower taxes, less support for social programs, privatization of industries such as healthcare, and heavy defense spending.
Democratic: More freedom/protect freedoms at almost all costs, more government control of industries, public healthcare and public social programs, higher taxes to support welfare systems and such.
Of course my definitions are not perfect. For instance, there are many liberals who do not support welfare programs, and many conservatives that do. This is just what I believe is the general mold of platforms. I think it would be impossible to come up with a perfect definition of exactly what a party is since people are not perfect creatures. We do not necessarily act as we are supposed to and do not necessarily follow the 'mold' of our parties. Some people feel a lot stronger about certain issues on their party's platform than others do. Some people are more committed and dedicated to their parties than others, etc.
If it were up to me, I would like to see less indentification with parties. I think that a lot of our problems in Washington stem from the idea that an idea is bad because it came from the 'enemies' party. We are hesistant to accept the ideas of the other party members because many feel a strong committment to their own. I believe that an idea is a good idea based on what it will do for our country, not on which party came up with it.
What's a party?
In America, we have two main parties; the democratic party and the conservative party. A party is a group of people who share common ideals and follow the same political platform. My definitions/distinctions between the two are as follows:
Conservative: Follow old traditions, more government control of individuals and individual's rights, lower taxes, less support for social programs, privatization of industries such as healthcare, and heavy defense spending.
Democratic: More freedom/protect freedoms at almost all costs, more government control of industries, public healthcare and public social programs, higher taxes to support welfare systems and such.
Of course my definitions are not perfect. For instance, there are many liberals who do not support welfare programs, and many conservatives that do. This is just what I believe is the general mold of platforms. I think it would be impossible to come up with a perfect definition of exactly what a party is since people are not perfect creatures. We do not necessarily act as we are supposed to and do not necessarily follow the 'mold' of our parties. Some people feel a lot stronger about certain issues on their party's platform than others do. Some people are more committed and dedicated to their parties than others, etc.
If it were up to me, I would like to see less indentification with parties. I think that a lot of our problems in Washington stem from the idea that an idea is bad because it came from the 'enemies' party. We are hesistant to accept the ideas of the other party members because many feel a strong committment to their own. I believe that an idea is a good idea based on what it will do for our country, not on which party came up with it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)