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.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
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.
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.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
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.
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.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
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.
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.
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.
Monday, September 13, 2010
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)