What Factors Affect the Strength of an Interest Group?

    When looking at the American political system, one can not ignore the huge role that interest groups play in almost every election.  When running for office, it is in a candidates best interests to support the same causes as powerful interest groups do.  Certain interest groups like the National Rifle Association, the Sierra Club and the American Federation of Labor are more powerful than others.  One question that is common for those studying politics deals with why certain interest groups are more powerful than others, and what affects the strength of an interest group?
    There are a number of reasons for why certain interest groups are stronger than others.  The first reason deals with the number of supporters or group members it has.  Some interest groups, like the NRA, represent the views of many Americans, allowing for a strong support base.  If the a large number of Americans support the cause of an interest group, than it would be in a candidates best interests to support the interest group supported by their constituents.  The second factor that affects the strength of an interest group is whether or not they are affiliated with the majority party in congress.  For example, the NRA is a relatively conservative interest group, therefore they hope for the majority party in congress to be Republican, allowing for the passing of more pro-gun bills.  A third factor that affects the strength of a certain interest groups deals with how many other interest groups support a similar cause, and whether or not the two groups can work together for a common goal.  Some of the strongest interest groups in America are those that have a mother branch, and a number of smaller groups that support and work with the larger group.
    In conclusion, although it may seem simple to create a strong interest group, there are many factors that one must consider before attempting to do so.  These factors are the support of American citizens, the support of the majority party, and the support of other interest groups.  Without the support of these various other elements of our political system, an interest group will not succeed.
http://www.twyman-whitney.com/americancitizen/links/lobbies.htm
http://wps.ablongman.com/long_tannahill_atg_10/125/32242/8253999.cw/-/8254001/index.html

How Important is Public Opinion?

    When looking at political elections, there are a number of reasons why one candidate claims victory over another.  One of the main reasons for victory is a positive public opinion.  Public opinion is conducted by means of polls, surveys and questionaires.  All of these polling techniques are used to gage the American citizens approval ratings of candidates running for office, and politicians already occupying a seat in office.  In order to win a campaign, it is in a candidates best interests to have high approval ratings in public opinion polls, as afterall, it is the public who controls a candidates employment.
    I believe that although some candidates seem to win elections even with low approval ratings, it is definitely important to gain support through public opinion when running for an election.  History and statistics show that candidates who make an effort to gain approval through public opinion, are usually more successful politicians.  Although there are exceptions (George W. Bush; who had one of the lowest approval ratings in history, while still managing to get elected into a second term), I believe that approval ratings and public opinion polls are more crucial for politicians on a state and local level.  For instance, many Presidents have had low approval ratings, but still managed to win elections, as citizens are forced to vote for the lesser of two evils thanks to our two-party system.  But, on a state and local level, elections are much more frequent beckoning constant support from a candidates constituents if a candidate wishes to occupy a seat in the House/Senate.
    In conclusion, I believe that in order to be a successful, life-long politician, it is vital to gain support through public opinion.  Although government officials on a federal level can ignore public opinion to an extent, the bottom line of winning an election deals with whether or not the public votes for you.

How Much do Interest Groups Actually Contribute?

    When looking at the American political system, the intricacies and expenses of elections sometimes go unnoticed.  When an American citizen decides to run for a political position, one of the primary concerns regarding their upcoming campaigns is how much money they will actually need to win.  New York's two senators for instance, raised $12,899,624 (Sen. Gillibrand) and $19,065,923 (Sen. Schumer) respectively.  Those who chose to run against them raised significantly less (The largest sum of one of the losers was only $2,112,884).  When looking at New York's district members of congress, the congressman that raised the highest was Carolyn Maloney at $2,932,000.
    Although these numbers seem staggering, political candidates rarely pay a large percentage of these numbers themselves.  They get help from campaign workers who work around the clock to raise money from the candidate's constituents.  Besides the money that comes from donations, money that comes from elsewhere, usually flows in from special Interest groups.  Senator Gillibrand attributes 20% of her money raised to special interest groups while Senator Schumer accumulated 15%.  While these numbers may be low, they may also in fact be skewed.  Members of interest groups are usually familiar with candidates in their district who support their cause.  In knowing these candidates, often times members of certain interest groups donate money to the candidate personally to show support on a personal level.
    I feel that interest groups are both necessary and effective in demonstrating support for congressional/senatorial/presidential candidates because it helps these candidates raise money without going "door to door".  While these candidates can enjoy easy access to campaign contributions, members of these interest groups who have to pay fees or donate, can rest assured knowing that their money is being put to good use.

http://www.opensecrets.org/races/election.php?state=NY

How Do Interest Groups Form?

    One of the many questions surrounding the topic of interest groups is how in fact they actually become an interest group.  While there are many different interest groups in the political realm, there are only a few reasons attributed to their formation.
    Usually, when an interest group forms, it happens when a group of individuals share a common interest.  The only difference between interest groups and interest-based clubs is that, those who join interest groups not only feel a certain way, but they feel strongly enough to try and preserve/change legislation in Government regarding their interest.  Some groups are formed to compete for economic resources, while other groups form to show support for the preservation of rights that may seem to be dwindling.  An example of this is the National Rifle Association and its counterpart, the Brady Campaign.  Those who join the National Rifle Association do so with hopes that their constitutional right to bear arms will not be taken away.  Those who join the Brady Campaign do so to help elect Government officials who will help pass legislation to create stricter rules regarding gun use/ownage.
    Individuals who join interest groups do so because of their strong feelings towards the cause being fought over on the legislative level.  Contributing money to these interest groups is one way in which its members can feel as though they did their part in helping the cause in which they so strongly believe in.  Aside from lobbying, interest groups also rally and march hoping to spread their word, gain media coverage, and eventually, more members.

http://thisnation.com/textbook/participants-groups.html (I forgot how to cite neatly, but I know you wanted citations, I'm sorry I'll try and figure it out for next time)

The Positives and Negatives of Interest Groups

    When looking at the American political system, one can point out many positives and negatives within the system.  One aspect of the American political system that has both positives and negatives are Interest Groups.
    When looking at interest groups, one can argue that they are either positive or negative.  One positive aspect of interest groups that is often discussed deals with the fact that they bring light to certain issues which would otherwise be ignored.  With minority issues facing the danger of being ignored, interest groups that address this issue help to bring attention to it.  By lobbying and donating money to influential candidates, interest groups that support minority issues have a chance to put government officials into office who will feel obligated to address and sympathize with the issue at hand.  Another positive aspect of interest groups has to do with preserving our Constitutional rights.  With gun violence increasing, many government officials sympathize with strong gun control bills.  Interest Groups such as the National Rifle Association (NRA), help to preserve our Constitutional rights by donating large sums of money to candidates who support our Constitutional right ro bear arms.

    Although there are postivie aspects around interest groups, I believe that interest groups are a negative aspect of American politics.  I believe that candidates should raise money and win spots in office based upon their views and appeals, unbiased to the views and beliefs of interest groups.  When candidates are elected into office with the help of interest groups, things that they originally supported may fall second to interest groups' views.  In order to feel like they properly pay back interest groups, newly elected government officials may disregard their original intents in office and fall victim to the views of political interest groups.

Sruvey

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/WF5BV55

Should Primary Elections Be Held On A National Level?

    Although Presidential primaries are usually only voted on by extremely politcally active citizens, these primaries still take longer than the Presidential election.  One problem with Presidential primaries deals with the fact that they take close to a year to complete, causing many people to in fact lose interest by the time the primary election comes around to their state.  Another problem with Presidential primaries deals with the fact that each state has different laws concerning how to go about electing the future Presidential nominee.  One solution that could fix both of these problems would be to hold the Presidential primary elections on a national scale.
    By holding the Presidential primaries on a national scale, not only will it be more fair, but it will also cut the time from close to a year to under a week.  With some states holding caucuses and others holding primary elections, party nominees could use strategy to win, which I feel doesn't represent the true feelings of American citizens.  By holding the Presidential primaries nationally, all states would be forced to use a similar type of voting style, making strategic efforts to win, that much more difficult.
    Another benefit that a national Presidential primary creates is the possibility of more voters.  If held on a national scale, Presidential primaries would recieve much more attention from the media, causing potential voters to feel the need to vote.  This would also eliminate the extremist outcome that comes with a drawn out state-by-state Presidential primary.
    In conclusion, I feel as though holding Presidential primaries on a national scale would be a positive change in the way we elect our President.  I also feel that by holding these primaries nationally, third parties would recieve more attention, helping to negate the perils of a two-party system.

Does Order Really Matter?

    During the primary election process, possible presidential nominees from each party go state by state, while citizens of these states vote for their choice respectively.  Since 1972, the first two caucuses/primaries to kick off the primary campaign has been Iowa and then New Hampshire.  Although many people may think that the order in which primaries go bears no effect on the outcome of the primaries, I beg to differ.
    I feel that, and history shows that, the presidential delegate who wins the Iowa and New Hampshire caucuses/primaries tends to create a snowball affect of success.  Because these two states create momentum for presidential candidates, I feel that they are given an excess amount of attention compared to the 48 other states.  All 50 states should recieve a similar amount of attention, in fact, I wouldn't even mind if states of obvious importance are given a little more.  But, sadly enough, the only reason that Iowa and New Hampshire are paid significant attention to, deals with the fact that they are the first two states which have primaries, and history shows that if you win the first two, momentum is in your favor.
    Instead of having Iowa and New Hampshire as the first two states, I feel that a way to successfully modify the current process would be to have a rotating list of states and the order in which they will be in the Presidential primaries.  By having a rotating list, different states will bear different amounts of importance in various Presidential elections, making it more fair to states which are paid virtually no attention to.  Another way that I feel would better the Presidential primary process would be to do smaller states first.  In doing this, it will force attention upon states such as Rhode Island, Vermont and Maine, all of which get virtually no attention during the Presidential primary campaigns.
    Although many people say that if something isn't broken, don't try and fix it, I feel that our system is fractured, requiring a small amount of modifications which would ensure a more fair primary election.

What's Better, Caucuses or Primaries?

   In the United States, when electing a Presidential nominee from both parties, Republicans and Democrats alike turn to either a primary voting system or caucus system.  Most famously, Iowa has been using the caucus system to elect their Presidential nominees during the primary process.  Most other states, however, use the primary voting system.
    Caucuses are held at the precinct level in schools, fire stations and sometimes even in individual's homes.  At these caucuses, those in attendance indicate their support for the candidates competing for each party's presidential nomination. In the Democratic party caucuses, votes are cast by raising hands, a sign-in sheet or by splitting into groups supporting each candidate. In the Republican caucuses, votes are cast by secret ballot, which is similar to the primary voting system in that each person writes down there choice on a piece of paper which is kept secret.  After these meetings are finished, each caucus selects delegates to send to each of the 99 county conventions, which are held in March.  At these county conventions, Republicans and Democrats use different means to select their delegates.  Democrats select delegates to district conventions where delegates to the state convention are chosen. Republicans bypass the district convention stage, choosing delegates to their state convention at the county conventions.  After this, in June, state convention delegates cast their votes for delegates to the national party conventions.
    Primaries, the more popular of the two ways to select a Presidential nominee, are held state by state with minor differences in each state.  Although there are minor differences state by state, primaries are basically the same as the Presidential election, except for the fact that only one party is being looked at.  People go in to various locations to cast their vote for who will represent a particular party on a national scale.
    At the end of the day, I really like the primary system over the caucus system.  Caucuses are much less straight forward than primary elections.  States that use primaries make it much easier for voters to place their opinions on a piece of paper.  I feel that caucuses are old and out dated and the country should turn to one unified way of selecting a Presidential nominee, and that way is primaries.

What Affects Party Identification?

    For the most part, the country is divided between people who are Republicans, and people who are Democats.  Barring those who identify with third parties, the majority of the country flows to either the political left, or the political right.  Although it may be obvious for some people why they chose what they chose, one can not wonder why the country is so polarized. 
    One thing that I feel strongly affects party identification, is family.  Statistics show that politically active families lead their children to in turn be politically active.  In my political science classes, there are usually only one or two students who admit to having parents who were not politically active.  If both parents are republicans, a childs view on republicans will most definitely be skewed, visa versa.  Children who have active republican/democratic parents will most definitely be able to agree with their parents party affiliation, as these children will usually only hear the positives about one party and the negatives of the rival party.
   Another thing that I feel strongly affects party identification is ones surroundings.  Growing up in highly rural or densly urban areas will definitely have an effect on one's political opinions.  Those who grow up in rural areas statistically relate more to republican values, while those who grow up in urban areas generally identify themselves with democratic values.  The reason that this is true deals with the fact that those in urban areas, statistically, deal more with people who recieve social benefits from the government.  Democratic leaders tend to be much more leniant with social benefits than do republicans.
    Although family and surroundings have a lot to do with party identification, there are probably many cognitive factors that play a role in picking a party, which people do not even know about.  Although other factors may exist, I feel that ones family, upbringing and surroundings has the most to do with party identification.

The Problem with Primaries

    Presidential primaries are the elections for those who will represent specific parties, and eventually run for President.  I feel that although the Presidential primaries are undoubtedly necessary, there are some flaws in the outcomes of them.
   The major problem that I have with Presidential primaries deals with the fact that political activists are the majority of voters during them.  Only those who strongly relate to certain parties are the ones that show up to vote for the eventual Presidential candidate.  Because the primary voters are political extremists, Presidential nominees are forced to appeal to them, basing their platforms on far right Republican ideologies or far left Democratic ideologies.
   Although it makes sense that Presidential nominees assert strong ideological views in order to appeal to primary voters, it can also prove dangerous when the general election comes around.  Once the general election rolls around, the then Presidential candidate, who is probably the most ideologically extreme of the nominees, is forced to focus his/her platform back to the center.  The reason that this happens is because once the primaries are over, it is the Presidential candidates job to appeal to the general population.  This is true because although it is a sure thing that die-hard Republicans will vote for the Republican candidate, and die-hard Democrats will vote for the Democratic candidate, the majority of American citizens who is left deciding, must choose between one of the two.
    Another major problem that I have with the primary system deals with the fact that once primaries are over, the general population is left to vote for the most extreme Presidential candidate of the nominees.  And although the Presidential candidate might take a more centrist view during the general election, his original ideologies will not change once elected President of the United States.  Because of this, I feel, that no matter what the public does, our current primary system leaves us voting for the most extreme Democratic candidate or the most extreme Republican candidate.

Positives and Negatives of Third Parties

    When looking at Presidential elections, one usually only looks at the Republican candidate, and the Democratic candidate.  This can be attributed to the realization that one of those two will be the eventual President of the United States.  Although the country focuses virtually all of their attention on those two parties, there are many parties that have been given the name "third parties."  The largest and most known of the third parties are the Green Party, Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party.  Although these parties have virtually no chance of winning the Presidential election, many candidates from these parties maintain hope by focusing on spreading a particular message and gaining followers who feel similarly in their message.
    Many people who don't agree with third parties, say that candidates who run for President out of these parties are "spoilers".  One who is called a spoiler is someone who runs for President with virtually no chance of winning, and takes potential votes away from a more likely candidate.  Many American citizens consider Ralph Nader a spoiler, based on the outcome of the 2000 Presidential Election.  Nader is held responsible by many Americans for taking potential electoral votes that would have went to Al Gore.  The amount of votes that went for Nader instead of Gore was just enough to swing the election in George W. Bush's favor.  Nader maintains his stance that he runs for President based on principles in which he strongly stands for, and also maintains that he will keep running, disregarding the percentage of the American public which calls him a spoiler.
    While some people see third party candidates as potential spoilers for future American Presidents, others see third parties as necessary, and see the right to run for President as constitutional.  Many people in favor of third parties see the country as polarized between two parties.  Some would even go on to say that because of the way that the Presidential election is set up, citizens are left voting for the lesser of two evils.  People who can't relate to the Democratic and Republican parties take refuge in third party ideologies.  Although it is clear that their odds of winning the Presidential election is fewer than slim to none, people join these parties because of basic beliefs and principles in which they carry.
    I feel that third parties are completely necessary and reflect our constitutional framers beliefs in all men created equal.  The American public should not have to choose between the lesser of two evils, and should have the right to follow a third party because of shared beliefs.  I think that people who call Ralph Nader and others like him a spoiler are no more than sore losers, and would be willing to bet that everyone who feels that way is a democrat.  If it had been reversed, I am sure that Republicans would have adopted the term spoiler and used it accordingly as well.  So in conclusion, I am happy that there are people in this country willing to run for the Presidency based solely on spreading their beliefs and ideology.  The American public should not be forced to choose between two candidates that they do not share the same ideologies with.

Does The Electoral College Discourage New Yorkers From Voting?

    The Electoral College was put in place for many reasons, the main reason was to make sure that the proper President was elected.  The founding fathers felt that many Americans were not educated enough to be able to vote for the President of the United States outright, so they set up what is known as the electoral college to make sure that a worthy President would be elected.  Citizens of the United States cast their vote for the popular vote, which is then used to determine which party electors would be sent to Washington, to officially select the President and Vice President.
    Although the electoral college is a smart idea, in that it sends politically knowledgable people to Washington to represent and elect a President based upon their states votes.  I believe that although the electoral college makes sense on a national scale, it deters many New Yorkers from voting based on the fact that New York historically votes democratically.  For those New York citizens who have Republican ideologies, voting in the Presidential election is virtually a waste of time.  No matter how many votes go towards the Republican candidate, New York seems as though it will always end up Democratic, therefore sending Democrats to the electoral college to vote on behalf of the majority party.  Because New York has one of the largest cities in the world, and cities tend to vote more democratically than rural areas, Republican New Yorkers are left with virtually no voice in the Presidential election.
    I feel that the only way to encourage New Yorkers to vote, would be get rid of the electoral college and vote for a President based solely on the Popular Vote.  Although could be dangerous due to the large number of politically uneducated people, it would prove to represent the feelings of Americans more accurately.