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.