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.