Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Monday, November 28, 2011
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.
-Trevor Sweet
Sweet Thoughts
Sweetinator100
Which ever thing shows up on the side that you must click to get to my blog
Etc.
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 Constitu
tional 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.
tional 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
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Saturday, November 26, 2011
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.
Friday, November 25, 2011
Zenya Udwadia Money Problems Among US
In the federal election system of the United States campaign finances is a pending issue that affects us all. People with the most money will win the most campaigns. People that have money to spend on campaigns are those who determine the issues that are addressed versus those who do not have money to donate. The reason for this is that those running in elections can't expect to get money from those they do not intend on paying back in some way. Also, if the candidate plans on running for office again those who donated the first time won't donate again if they do not feel the candidate attempted to help them or can help them the following time. Therefore, those with money to donate control the election, as well as the candidates that already are well off and contribute heavily to their own campaign. This issue is still prevelant but the McCain-Feingold Bill, passed in 2002, helped to solve part of the problem by eliminating soft money, the ability of people to donate as much money as they wanted to a party that could then be given to a candidate. A $2000 limit became the new amount individuals were allowed to give per election cycle with a built in increase for inflation. Also, corporations and businesses are not allowed to donate money. Money must come from individuals, 527 groups (groups that don't work directly with a candidates campaign), or PACs (private groups that make up Political Action Committies). Because of PACs, those who win office are impaired in making policies that benefit the nation as a whole. PACs also hold more power than the average citizen because specific issues hold PACs together that the politican is more apt to "hear" than individuals, and PACs can give up to $5000 to a candidate per election cycle and up to $15,000 to a political party. 527 groups are allowed to donate $2,300 per election to a candidate and $28,500 to a political party. Yet another problem with money in federal elections is that incumbents have less access to money and PACs give money based upon the candidate they think will win and therefore are buying access to the government. Independent expenditures in campaigns are seen as a loophole in the limits on money given to the candidate but in reality they are not. If a person wants to premote a candidate by presenting factual items to the media they should be allowed. And if a candidate is truly a good one not much factual information can be said against them.
There is an endless amount of money that can be raised by each candidate. With that being said an endless amount of money can be spent. That is a huge problem and an open door for corruption. Having a limited amount of money each candidate can use is just as much against the 1st Amendment (supporting freedom of speech) as limiting how much each group or individual can donate to a candidate. Each election period, candidates raise more and more money meaning they spend more and more. Where does this money go? Are prices of media and advertisement really going up to the extent of how much more money is being raised? Does this huge amount of extra money really allow candidates to get their stance out? Well, the money is gone almost simultaneously as it has been aquired and goes directly to media such as television, radio, billboards, travel, hotels, etc. And te
levision airing prices have risen but not a drastic amount. Also campaigning over the internet is very easy and should in fact lessen the overall cost since its mass media that is cheaper than air time on television and e-mails are free. From the 2004 to the 2008 presidential election the average earnings went from $330,000 to $550,000. So, the amount of money that goes into campaigning is not necessary and would not restrict the candidates' freedom of speech. In the chart above is a recent example of where campaign money goes. It is very surprising how much goes to fundraising and shows that they system needs help.
levision airing prices have risen but not a drastic amount. Also campaigning over the internet is very easy and should in fact lessen the overall cost since its mass media that is cheaper than air time on television and e-mails are free. From the 2004 to the 2008 presidential election the average earnings went from $330,000 to $550,000. So, the amount of money that goes into campaigning is not necessary and would not restrict the candidates' freedom of speech. In the chart above is a recent example of where campaign money goes. It is very surprising how much goes to fundraising and shows that they system needs help.Thursday, November 24, 2011
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Monday, November 21, 2011
Act of Voting By Josh Lorenzetti
http://jdsdeepthoughts.blogspot.com/
Act of Voting
The act of voting in the United States can be a complicated process. Laws about voting differ from state to state. Voter turnout for years has been struggling to get over 50% during midterm elections (elections that take place during the 2nd year of the presidential term, ex. 2010) and getting more people voting for president. Deciding whether to use paper ballots or electronic balloting at polls and costs for each. Voter registration laws are usually always up for questioning. The point of voting is to express your opinion and help make decisions. As Americans there is always something to say and always trying to make life better for ourselves whether we are the ones doing it or relying on someone else.
Each individual state has their voter registration laws since there is no national law requiring states to have registration for voters. The laws can range from having no registration like North Dakota (only state to have no registration for voters) or having strict laws like South Carolina where you must register at least 30 days in advance. Voter registration can be confusing and lead to a decrease in voter turnout. The main purpose of voter registration is to prevent voter fraud. The three requirements for voting in the United States are 1. Must be a U.S. citizen 2. Must have residence in state you are voting in 3. Must be 18 for November elections. In the chart below it shows the number of people who are at or above the voting age population, how many of those were registered, and the number of people who voted. Keep in mind that not all people of voting age are eligible to vote. Only about 7.5 percent of people are in the non-eligible to vote category (1).
| Year | Voting-age | Voter | Voter turnout | Turnout of voting-age |
| 2010** | 235,809,266 | NA | 90,682,968 | 37.8% |
| 2008* | 231,229,580 | NA | 132,618,580* | 56.8 |
| 2006 | 220,600,000 | 135,889,600 | 80,588,000 | 37.1 |
| 2004 | 221,256,931 | 174,800,000 | 122,294,978 | 55.3 |
| 2002 | 215,473,000 | 150,990,598 | 79,830,119 | 37.0 |
| 2000 | 205,815,000 | 156,421,311 | 105,586,274 | 51.3 |
| 1998 | 200,929,000 | 141,850,558 | 73,117,022 | 36.4 |
| 1996 | 196,511,000 | 146,211,960 | 96,456,345 | 49.1 |
| 1994 | 193,650,000 | 130,292,822 | 75,105,860 | 38.8 |
| 1992 | 189,529,000 | 133,821,178 | 104,405,155 | 55.1 |
| 1990 | 185,812,000 | 121,105,630 | 67,859,189 | 36.5 |
| 1988 | 182,778,000 | 126,379,628 | 91,594,693 | 50.1 |
| 1986 | 178,566,000 | 118,399,984 | 64,991,128 | 36.4 |
| 1984 | 174,466,000 | 124,150,614 | 92,652,680 | 53.1 |
| 1982 | 169,938,000 | 110,671,225 | 67,615,576 | 39.8 |
| 1980 | 164,597,000 | 113,043,734 | 86,515,221 | 52.6 |
| 1978 | 158,373,000 | 103,291,265 | 58,917,938 | 37.2 |
| 1976 | 152,309,190 | 105,037,986 | 81,555,789 | 53.6 |
| 1974 | 146,336,000 | 96,199,0201 | 55,943,834 | 38.2 |
| 1972 | 140,776,000 | 97,328,541 | 77,718,554 | 55.2 |
| 1970 | 124,498,000 | 82,496,7472 | 58,014,338 | 46.6 |
| 1968 | 120,328,186 | 81,658,180 | 73,211,875 | 60.8 |
| 1966 | 116,132,000 | 76,288,2833 | 56,188,046 | 48.4 |
| 1964 | 114,090,000 | 73,715,818 | 70,644,592 | 61.9 |
| 1962 | 112,423,000 | 65,393,7514 | 53,141,227 | 47.3 |
| 1960 | 109,159,000 | 64,833,0965 | 68,838,204 | 63.1 |
*Source 2008 election results: http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2008G.html.
**Source 2010 election results: http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2010G.html
n.a. = not available. NOTE: Presidential election years are in boldface.
1. Registrations from Iowa not included.
2. Registrations from Iowa and Mo. not included.
3. Registrations from Iowa, Kans., Miss., Mo., Nebr., and Wyo. not included. D.C. did not have independent status.
4. Registrations from Ala., Alaska, D.C., Iowa, Kans., Ky., Miss., Mo., Nebr., N.C., N.D., Okla., S.D., Wis., and Wyo. not included.
5. Registrations from Ala., Alaska, D.C., Iowa, Kans., Ky., Miss., Mo., Nebr., N.M., N.C., N.D., Okla., S.D., Wis., and Wyo. not included.
Source: Federal Election Commission. Data drawn from Congressional Research Service reports, Election Data Services Inc., and State Election Offices.
Information Please® Database, © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Read more: National Voter Turnout in Federal Elections: 1960–2010 — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html#ixzz1dvKxrrp1
The chart shows that voter registration can eliminate a significant amount of people who can vote. This could be due to the fact that people do not want to take time and register themselves. However I think voter registration is necessary in high populated states in order to minimize voter fraud. No voter registration works in North Dakota because everyone knows everyone due to the small population in the state (around 635,000). This prevents almost all voter fraud because if the person running the polls knows everyone, it is easy to tell if people are voting twice because you would see them twice. Voter turnouts have a tendency to be below 50% especially if the president is not on the ballot. Sometimes this can be because people may not realize voting is important and have not been taught this. Off year elections also show that not as many people show up to vote when the president is not on the ballot. Off year elections happen every two years and are on odd numbered years. For example there was an off year election in 2005; the next off year election was in 2007. Turnout rates during off year elections are low. This is because the people on the ballot are usually just local officials, although off year elections are used to fill a federal office if it’s empty and five states use the off year elections to elect their governor. Off year elections are starting to be considered a waste of money because of the low voter turnouts. It cost the city of Largo, FL about 70,000 dollars for one of these elections (2). It costs the city of New York about 17 million to do the same thing (3)! That is ridiculous and the money going to manage those elections should be going somewhere else that is more useful. All elections are on Tuesdays which can be a major problem. This can be a problem because almost all of the voting eligible population works and those that do not work usually have school. Tuesday is tough because it is close to the middle of the week. People usually always have something to do or something going on during the week. The way people vote can also be a problem if they are using paper ballots. The paper ballots are a problem because they can be easily misplaced and lost because they are just sheets of paper and there can be lots of them. If they are misplaced or lost and not found it can lead to votes not being counted that should have been counted and that can matter. We saw that in the Bush vs. Gore presidential race a small number of votes can change who wins and losses. In this election it came down to 537 votes in which George W. Bush won the election.
To fix the voting registration problem I think there should be one national voting registration law. That law would be for a person to register 15 days prior to the election and they have to bring photo identification to the poll. This can help prevent voter fraud because both registration and photo ID cut down on people voting multiple times and they prevent people from voting who are not supposed to vote. I chose 15 days because it is not too early like a month but not same day voting registration. I think the off year elections should be moved to the even numbered years so it will occur during a midterm or presidential election. Then the only reason left to have an off year election is if there is an open seat in Congress or in the state legislature. This saves tons of money for all the cities and will allow for better voter turnout because the voter turnouts are much better during midterm or presidential elections. This way the congressional, local, state, and possibly presidential (depending on the year) will be on the ballot and people never leave something open when asked their opinion. I think voting should be moved to a different day. Weekends would not work because of football and church. Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday do not work either because of being in the middle of the work day as well as people traveling for college football. That only leaves one day open and that is Monday. I think Monday works because it is the start of the week and it is typically the slowest of the work days because everyone is just getting back from the weekend. The move from the first Tuesday in November to the first Monday in November would help with increasing voter turnout. It would help voter turnout because since Mondays are the slowest day for most Americans there will be more time available to vote because taking time off work will not “cost” as much. The use of paper ballots should be ineffective. Paper ballots are inconvenient and as said earlier can be lost or misplaced easily. Electronic ballots should always be used to prevent fraud, lost ballots, and possibly double counting or not counting votes. The computer used when electronically voting should be touch screen and able to use the mouse. Then once that person is done voting a receipt is printed out showing who was voted for and the person can make sure the computer logged everything correctly this way. Once the receipt is picked up it should be dropped off into a box that would be used for an optical scanner if electronic fraud was detected. I also think the young men and women should be taught in our school system that voting is important. Teachers should encourage these kids to vote once they become of age and once they are of age to vote should still be encouraged. Some kids come from families that do not put emphasis on voting and I think these kids should know what voting means, how it can affect people, and how important it is. Then the kids can make the choice but at least they have been well informed. These proposed fixes would allow for better voter turnout and reduced voter fraud.
Works Cited
1. Elections.gmu.edu/turnout_2010G.html
3. http://www.ny1.com/content/news_beats/politics/149634/off-year-election-still-costs-nyc--17-million
4. http://www.campaignyoungvoters.org/low-voter-turnout-rates-in-the-u-s-why-dont-more-people-vote.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)