John Scott Blog Link

here is my blog

http://candidateslikemoney.blogspot.com/

Brooks' link

http://brooksburdette.blogspot.com/

My link zenyaA

Http://moneyproblemsamongus.blogspot.com

Sam Dozier

http://teachmehowtoblogie.blogspot.com/

Daniel Smith's Blog

We all know the basic goal of any election regardless of size is simple: to win. How does a candidate running for the state legislature, Congress, or the Presidency win an election?  With money, and it helps to have a lot of it. A candidate can be the most literate, out-going, friendly, and competent person for office, but without financing they cannot win an election. All of aforementioned factors play a role in securing financing, which is important because those with the most money usually win elections.  The planes, trains, automobiles, television ads, dinners, billboards, mailings, staffers, and headquarters that those running for office utilize are all ultimately run by one fuel, money (the environmentalists should be happy, after all money is green).

Presidential candidates raise (and spend) a tremendous amount of money every election cycle, but where do they get their money? Everyone contributes to campaigns; John Smith down the street might give 50 dollars and the Teamsters Union might give over two million. John Smith gives money to a campaign based on his values, that the candidate would be a good President because he and John share the same beliefs and morals. The Teamsters Union gives to a campaign based upon its pocketbook. In the 2008 election the Teamsters Union PAC gave $2,248,950 to the Democratic Party. Why? The Democrats had an agenda where the unions could prosper better than under a conservative president. By the way, unions used to bring reform during the 1800s and early 1900s, but now unions are a thorn in the side of laissez-faire economics and capitalism. Any business is better off not being unionized, because if unions do take hold profits will decrease, production will decrease, and strikes are sure to ensue.

In the 2012 Presidential election to date, all of the candidates have raised a combined total of $179,301,500. The PACs that support the candidates have raised $405,895,921. The combined total of all the money raised is $585,197,421, a little over half a billion dollars. Five hundred million dollars, that’s a lot of money if you ask me. Five hundred million dollars is even more money when you look at how the average household income is only $49,445.

So in the race to become President, candidates and their contributors will spend over TEN THOUSAND times more than most families make in a year. Strange right? Since the economy is such a big deal in America right now, how is it that this much money can be overlooked? How should the candidates handle their money? Should the government place a spending cap on how much candidates can spend on campaigning? Should there be a ceiling on how much individuals can contribute to a campaign? These are all tricky questions since they can infringe on a person’s First Amendment rights and more laws only add to the government’s already too large scope of power. The big issue doesn’t lie in excessive government control of campaign money management; the government certainly shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near massive amounts of money, we’re learning that lesson the hard way right now. But the bigger issue should be about information, how well the American people are informed about campaign expenditures. If all Americans had the level of political awareness that most AP Government students do, they certainly wouldn’t contribute such extravagant amounts of money that they are now. I mean, talk about extravagance, Barack Obama had so much money in the 2008 Presidential Election he just decided to buy a thirty minute time slot on NBC, CBS, ABC, Univision (a Spanish channel), AND Black Entertainment Television. And just think, since the November 9^th  Emergency Alert System test,  the federal government can now take control of all the air waves. Scary right? Having to listen to Obama on ALL the radio and television stations. Sure contributing money to the Republican or Socialist parties is important to party survival, but should we really be putting five hundred million dollars worth into the process to elect our president? (Did I say Socialist Party? I meant to say Democrat Party, they’re just so easily confused).  

I believe that the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) and the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act are just another way for the government to control the elections. It is not up to the government to control how much money is being contributed to campaigns, but it is up to the people and corporations. One upside to FECA was that it created the Federal Election Commission (FEC) which requires candidates to disclose their campaign expenditures. The electorate and those contributing to campaigns have a right to know how much money is being spent and where the money is going.

Whether it’s a good or bad, people and corporations can only give limited amounts of money to elections. These limits haven’t seemed to hurt the candidates though, because they are raking in more money than ever. Although the government can regulate money, it can’t regulate time.     So say you can only give less than one hundred dollars out of pocket to a candidate, but you can still volunteer and show some external efficacy. Don’t just sit back and watch MSNBC, go out to vote and show some real support for who you want to be President. If you’re watching MSNBC though, it’s probably a good idea that you stop watching anyways, that stuff kills brain cells, and chances are if you’re watching it, you don’t have that many anyways.

Rank	Organization	Total '89-'12	Dem %	Repub %	Tilt
1	ActBlue	$57,214,592	99%	0%
2	AT&T Inc	$47,744,462	44%	55%
3	American Fedn of State, County & Municipal Employees	$46,366,658	94%	1%
4	National Assn of Realtors	$40,825,526	47%	49%
5	Service Employees International Union	$37,757,242	76%	2%
6	National Education Assn	$37,147,829	82%	5%
7	Goldman Sachs	$36,121,737	60%	39%
8	American Assn for Justice	$35,021,554	88%	8%
9	Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers	$34,445,872	97%	2%
10	Laborers Union	$32,096,950	88%	7%
11	American Federation of Teachers	$31,883,116	90%	0%
12	Teamsters Union	$31,401,292	89%	6%
13	Carpenters & Joiners Union	$31,079,258	86%	9%
14	Communications Workers of America	$30,287,648	94%	0%
15	Citigroup Inc	$29,084,282	49%	49%

Notice how most of the PACs above lean to the left? Also notice how most of them are unions? Don’t forget Goldman Sachs, which received 12.9 BILLION in a government bailout. Just look at the chart and its plain to see why the country is in such a mess.

The above chart shows the top ten PAC donors since 1989. An interesting feature is the tilt column, which shows how the PAC leans politically. It’s quite obvious that the majority of the PACs are leaning to the left. Most corporations like AT&T, Citigroup, and etcetera give a generally equal amount to both sides to not appear biased. But good old Goldman Sachs gives most of its contributions to the liberals, and isn’t a coincidence that Goldman Sachs also got a 12.9 billion dollar bailout in 2007? Actually, it isn’t too coincidental considering in the year 2007 the Democrats did control Congress, they wouldn’t want to bite the hand that feeds them.

Sources:

http://www.fec.gov/law/feca/feca.pdf

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/us_elections_2008/7696918.stm

http://www.opensecrets.org/

AP Gov Notes

Zenya udwadia

Http://blythewoodapgov.bloodspot.com/2011/11/zenya-udwadia-money-problems-among-us.html

Http://blythewoodapgov.bloodspot.com/2011/11/zenya-udwadia-money-problems-among-us 28.html

Devin Gilbert-Is the way the Presidential Elections Correct

http://devinmichael-corruptioninpolitics.blogspot.com/

Wayne Washington II - The Act of Voting

In America, we have many ways to vote. We've constantly tried to reform voting to make it more efficient, whether we passed or failed is up to whoever is evaluating it. In the past there was a lot of corruption and voter fraud. The current ways of voting aren't as corrupt, but still, there are plenty of problems.

                                                                                                                                    

Location is a major problem that needs to be dealt with during the voting process. People in rural parts of the country have to travel many of miles just to cast a vote. The people already feel like their vote doesn't count. So, making a potential voter have a road trip to cast a vote isn't going to help the turnout rates.

In states such as Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin, in order to register to vote, you have to get a voter photo identification card. The ID card is strictly required in those states and will likely decrease voter turnout because a lot of Americans in rural parts of the country will have transportation problems. Past surveys show that rural Americans don't want to have to get a photo id card that will make the voting process even more of a hassle/effort for hard working Americans.

State Requirements for Voter ID

Table 1. State Requirements for Voter Identification
States that Request or Require Photo ID		States that Require ID (Photo Not Required)
Strict Photo ID Georgia Indiana Kansas (1) Mississippi (8) South Carolina (2) Tennessee (3) Texas (2) Wisconsin (4)	Photo ID Alabama (2), (7) Florida Hawaii Idaho Louisiana Michigan South Dakota	Alaska Arizona Arkansas Colorado Connecticut Delaware Kentucky Missouri	Montana North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma (5) Rhode Island (6) Utah Virginia Washington

This will be forcing the potential people/voters to contact the required place to get a photo developed. This is really in some way or format, restricting voter turnout by doing exactly that. For example, if you live in the woods, far south of any major cities and you're old/ a senior citizen, and you already have travel issues/problems and you're not computer/cell phone savvy you're going to have a major issue/problem with having to get a photo ID to vote, because those will be the only way to get one.

I recommend that the states go back to the original way of voting. This allowed anybody to vote even without a picture ID. They only had to be registered. That process makes it less difficult and not as inconvenient for the American people who already struggle with transportation and or technology. I believe we could keep the photo Identification requirement only if the states asking it to be done/passed carry out the means of transportation and/or service towards those Americans in their states that don't have the photo identification needed for voting.

Voting usually takes place only in major parts of towns and/or major cities within states. This also leads to the current decrease in voter turnout because as I've been stating, Americans in rural parts of the country will have a hard time with transportation. I feel that in order to help stop this issue voting should be held on farms and smaller towns. Basically, there should be more places/opportunities to vote in different and smaller areas.

According to the Washington city paper website, Americans have been voting with electronic ballots more than they have been voting with paper ballots. Americans feel that the electronic ballot/optical ballot is more convenient, quicker to deal with and more efficient and up to date, then having to fill out a piece of paper. Although they are aware of some of the downsides electronic ballots bring with them/produce, they still seem to prefer the electronic ballot than the old fashion/out-of-date paper ballots.

It seems that only the person who published the article on the website I'm using to get this information and a few others, including me, know most of the other problems associated with electronic ballots. Although electronic ballots are/maybe more convenient, they can still be corrupted and or untrustworthy. The corrupted and untrustworthy part comes into play when you think about whether or not the electronic ballot is/has been hacked and/or moderated by an outside force or serious threat.

Hacking and/or moderating are quickly becoming one of the world’s most serious threats to electronic systems. This may be because hacking and moderating are becoming easier to do/create by the average citizen. I assume this is because there are tutorials and lessons you can take on hacking and moderating on the Internet. A popular source for this information is the Internet sensation website, YouTube. 

So, with electronic ballots and the hacking and/or moderating situation, someone can see who you voted for, and change whatever name the voter put on the ballot/machine to another candidates name who wasn't originally put on the ballot/machine. This will make it seem as if the voter voted for another candidate at the same position you wanted the original candidate to be elected to. This is/can be a serious threat to the country and would change whoever truly should be president; in my/this theoretical situation. Also, this is what I inquired from my cited website, about the electronic ballot being vulnerable to hacking.

I recommend that the government enforces a law that requires electronic ballots to have the best up-to-date/latest protection against all virus threats in society. I believe that this can be accomplished through 24 hour check up on the electronic ballot machines by experienced anti-hacking and/or phishing experts. I feel that this shouldn't only take place during election times but all throughout the year. This way if someone is stupid enough to hack a highly protected government object, they can be tracked down and put to justice and/or the damage that was done to the ballot machine can be reversed/fixed.

The act of voting in the American society is/can be a very dangerous but necessary process. Turnout rates are lower then they use to be, but as I stated earlier I believe it's because of location and I discussed what I feel the solution should be. Voter registration is becoming less complicated and more convenient but also more threatening at the same time. I stated how I believe there should be a 24 hour watch from experienced professionals. I discussed how people tend to vote in our society and whether it's secure and/or legit. I hope I was able to help you readers in some way.

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/looselips/2010/09/02/dear-votemaster-is-there-a-paper-trail/

    

http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=16602

 

http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/9330-electronic-voting-machines-proven-vulnerable-to-hacking

Jai Hill's Blog

http://diaryofagerrymander.blogspot.com/

Daymond Parrilla

http://whatsvoting.blogspot.com/

Woah!

Hey you crazy AP kids! How bouts you go checks out mi bloawg? Thanks!
-Trevor Sweet
Sweet Thoughts
Sweetinator100
Which ever thing shows up on the side that you must click to get to my blog
Etc.

Reid My Blog 2!!!- Rob Reid

http://reidmyblog2.blogspot.com/

Zenya Udwadia Money Problems Among US: Solutions

http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=6925824440690771351&postID=5437122576727404560

We have already established that there are numerous problems with the way our government campaign finances work. But what can be done to solve the issues? This is more complicated then it may seem and there are various solutions that could work. But, that in itself is a problematic situation because even though some ideas seem that they would work it can not be sure until tested which could lead to even more corruption. Also, it is very difficult to reform financing because of Constitutionality. Since the Navy Appropriations Bill of 1867 there have been less than 20 bills, acts, and Supreme Court Cases that have successfully been passed regaurding finance reform. Most people don't care to clean up the system though because they believe that there will always be loopholes to find and new legislation won't be effective. The solution is relatively simple "Clean Money Clean Elections" also known as CMCE. Each candidate will go through a qualifying round in which they will raise small dollar donations. And, once they reach a certain amount they will go to the federal government and sign a contract saying that they will only federal funds and won't raise money any other way. The government then gives them a certain amount to use. If the contract is broken then they will be charged with a huge bill. This is a Constitutional act because it won't be mandatory to participate; it will be optional. Candidates will choose to participate in this system though because they will save time and be able to focus on their campaign rather than raising money. Candidates will be pressured to particpate in this also by not wanting to be have bad publicity as being owned by private groups. Government can give an alotted time for television airing for free which is another beneficial advantage candidates that agree to the CMCE system. This system will work as long as a log of what candidates spend their money on and other transactions are kept. On the state level this system has been tried by Maine and Arizona and it has been very successful and given candidates more time to campaign.

Although the CMCE system would be effective it most likely won't get passed. So, for now our current system has loopholes that need to be closed. As soon as a person has donated the amount that they are allowed they should not be able to advertise and aid in rasing additional funds. This of course includes that those who have given money shouldn't be allowed to raise "soft money" funds either. Soft money is yet another issue that needs to be addressed. There should be a certain amount of time that soft money can be given to candidates and prohibiting soft money from being used in federal to state activities. This would not allow soft money to go to candidates from people that already donated to their campaigns and keep interest groups (PACS, etc.) from holding so much power.

Sources:

Washington Post

Open Secrets

www.policyalmanac.org/government/archive/crs_campaign_finance.shtml

http://money.howstuffworks.com/campaign-finance5.htm

Lindsey Rega - Blog

http://lindseyrega.blogspot.com/

Kristen Meyers Big $penders

http://kristenrosemeyers.blogspot.com/

jojo johnson-our screwy system

jjohnson12.blogspot.com

Sarah Baroody; Electoral College

http://sbaroody.blogspot.com/

ah the joys of copy 'n paste...

So. Whew, only 1199 more words to go. Have I hooked your attention? That’s right, I’m a hooker. Just in case you are wondering, the reason I am writing so informally is because this is a blog, and so it does not deserve the formality of the traditional essay. Plus, what is more “hooking” that informality?

Anyhoo, this blog is going to be about the problems of presidential elections, and the possible solutions to these problems. Although, if the government has not yet discovered the solutions, then what hope does a seventeen year old MAN have? Even if I am extraordinarily brilliant. For instance, I spelled extraordinarily correct first try.

So, problems with the presidential elections. To the internet! Shoot, because I live in the country, I have satellite internet, and it is raining pretty heavy so my internet is currently down. Perhaps I shall try again later.

Well, the first page to come up is Wikipedia, but I have been told that this page is not entirely reliable, so I shall avoid it for now.

I suppose that before going into the problems of the electoral system, first I must inform you of what the Electoral College does and how it came to be established in America. As with most of the American governmental system, the Electoral College is not entirely original. The system was derived from the Holy Roman Empire. An elector was one of the princes from the many German states within the Holy Roman Empire who had the right to participate in the election of the German king. The system became American federal law in 1845, and today the term appears in 3 U.S.C. section 4, in the section heading and in the text as "college of electors."

Wow, this is incredibly boring. Looks like I found problem number one.

Okay, so let us look at some problems concerning the Electoral College system. I say “some” because in the past 200 years, over 700 proposals to change the process have been made. I only plan on going over two at the moment. First, is the possibility of electing a minority president. In other, longer words, with the current system there is the possibility that the loser of the presidential election, might win more popular votes, but in the long run gain less electoral votes. This is because of the winner take all system. Take Idaho, which has four electoral votes, for example. If candidate number one gets forty-nine percent of the popular vote, and candidate two gets fifty-one percent of the popular vote, then candidate two gets all four electoral votes. Such a scenario happened in 2000, when Al Gore lost the presidential election to George Bush, even though Gore secured .51% more popular vote. So even though Gore received more votes from the citizens, Bush won because of the winner take all system. .51% may not seem like much, but in the large run it is roughly 543,895 votes.

The second problem also deals with the winner take all system. Because certain states traditionally favor one party, it is highly likely that this system leads to less voter turnout. Take South Carolina, a traditional republican state, for example. But before I go into this, let me blog about something a bit more personal for a second. I am feeling intense dislike towards my brother at this moment. He is right behind me, play songs by the band Counting Crows. Now, I enjoy this band, it has many good songs. What I do not enjoy is listening to my brother sing along loudly and badly. Unfortunately I have not the courage to call him out and tell him to die in a hole so I can stop praying to the Lord to puncture my ear drums, so instead I am releasing some of my fury into this blog. Where was I? Ah yes, South Carolina. So in 2008 John McCain won South Carolina. He won with 53.9% of the popular vote. In other words, the other 46.1% of voters basically voted for nothing, because their votes did nothing to contribute to their candidate’s electoral winnings. I can see a lot of people thinking, “What is the point in voting if the republicans are going to win anyways?” Well, I can’t literally see them thinking, because if I could see people’s thoughts, I would not waste time worrying about their political thoughts. But that story is for a different blog. But anyhoo, I can understand if lots of democrats and third party voters deciding not to bother with the waste of time of voting for a lost cause.

Well, the obvious solution to such a problem would be to stop the ridiculous Electoral College business and start deciding the president via the popular vote alone. But, you must think more intellectually than that. It is such an obvious solution that I very much doubt that I am the first to figure this out. I would bet an oak to an acorn that one of those 700 proposals has mentioned this idea. So the government probably has a pretty good reason for not making this the method of choosing the president.

Before I enter my next solution, let me mention that now my brother is singing Elton John. Once again, I am okay with this artist. Once again, I am NOT okay with my brother butchering the song through his dramatic interpretation.

Right, roughly 300 words left to think of a solution to solve a problem that has stumped America’s most brilliant political minds for centuries. I’ve already thought of many solutions. Most of them involve magic. One or two of them involve using hypnosis to brainwash everyone into believing that the current system, or whatever system the brainwasher prefers, is the correct way to run things.

Honestly I do not see what is wrong with the way things currently work. I mean, no system is perfect, and no system makes everyone happy. All I know is that through my research, people will find problems no matter what. Just think of those 700-ish proposals to change or abolish the Electoral College. If there had been nothing wrong with the proposals, then surely our Congress would have gladly made the switch. Maybe I should have picked a different topic. But I doubt that would have made much of a difference. On a random note, I’m watching Cats. On a less random note, I still have yet to think of a solution that would truly solve all the problems. I do not believe it to be possible. Unfortunately I am cursed with seeing both sides of the argument. Only 100-ish more words to go! Hmmm, how many different ways can I explain that there is no perfect solution, and I am happily content with the way things are run. Whoops, I am NOT happily content with the way things are run, just the way this particular system is set up. There are plenty of problems in our government that need solving. Like the economy. Or. . . oh I don’t know, I joined this class to LEARN about the stupid government, not try to fix it. Only four more words. Although that last sentence was actually the four I needed. Sweet. Anyhoo, in conclusion, our American government is not perfect, and most likely will never be perfect. Unless you allow me to take control. I suppose that is actually my best solution. Although that probably falls under the category of “magical” because I cannot imagine me ever ruling this country. Maybe I should stop wishing for my ear drums to puncture and focus on the important things at hand. . .like world domination. Ah, don’t you feel nice and informed? Good night. . .and good luck.