In American society there is a two party system. This is the way it is, and the way it has been since the founders made the Constitution. But the question remains, is this the best way to govern America?
When assessing the two party system one finds a lot of holes and problems in it. In my opinion the biggest problem with the two party system is that there just isn’t enough of a difference between the two parties to provide much of a choice. Sure the two parties have differences, but are they really all that dramatically different? The Democrats want one thing, so the Republicans want something that is different, but not too different. Sadly that is the way that our politics seem to go. Not to say that I’m a huge fan of radical third parties or anything, but it is nice to see some different opinions out there. The American people do not have much of choice when it comes to choosing parties, or is it that the American people don’t want much of a choice?
Maybe the reason why there isn’t much of a choice between the two main parties is that the people don’t want much of a change. We as the people like the idea that if we become dissatisfied with the party that is currently in power, by making a change, that isn’t much of a change at all, to the other main party. This allows us to feel that we have more power than we actually do, and that we are really making a difference by electing one party over the other. In reality we aren’t really making a change that is going to matter all that much. In my opinion that is the biggest problem with the current two party system, both parties are too similar. If we ever want to make a real change in this country one of these days we are going to have to step out side the box and vote for something a little different. But, as of right now we have a two party system involves two parties that are too similar.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Sunday, October 14, 2007
One Vote
You know when you go to the polls to vote and after your done you get handed a little sticker that reads, “I Voted”? How many people out there put that sticker on and wear it throughout the rest of the day because they are proud that they voted? Or, how many take the sticker and throw it away because they are not proud they voted, but felt they had to? Personally, I take the sticker and proudly wear it, in fact I still have the sticker from the first time I voted. That sticker I never wore, but kept it because I was proud of my first vote. This week the issue of why should people vote came up, with various responses. Some feel that people should vote because it is their civic duty, others feel people should vote based only on the issues, and others still, feel people should vote because of partisan identification, and so on and so forth. You could sit for hours thinking of reasons why people should vote, but in the end only the person going to do the voting knows why they are there.
People may be influenced to go vote because of partisan identification. Many people feel a strong allegiance to one party or another and so they go to vote because of it. This is not wrong. Honestly, this is probably the biggest reason why I go vote. The reasons for why people identify with a certain party can vary. Many times it is because of how they were raised. If someone is raised in a predominantly Republican, or predominantly Democratic household that person is more than likely to grow up with those same predominant ties. But by doing this isn’t that person limiting themselves and failing to fully educate themselves on the whole wide range of issues and party’s? Some people identify with a certain party because they feel that party best supports the issues they care most about. For example, someone voting for the Republican party all the time because they care most about domestic security and abortion, or someone voting for the Democratic party because they are most concerned about the economy and health care. But by doing this isn’t that person ignoring other issues of looking past the individual candidates policies and just voting for the party’s general stance on issues?
Many other people vote basing their decisions solely on the issues. Many care only about one or two issues, like the aforementioned abortion or health care. These people will take this issue into their heads and think that issue and only that issue when making their decisions, choosing that candidate that best represents their stance on the issue. They may not necessarily choose because of party ID, but instead based only on the issue most important to them. Others, may look at more than one issue, but only pick issues that are going to affect them. For example, a college student looking only at issues that pertain to the rising tuition costs and other educational issues. But by doing this aren’t these people being selfish and ignoring all the other issues that they may not care as much about or that do not affect them, but do in fact affect others. There are many issues at stake whether in a local or national election, and ignoring the issues that do not concern you personally may be close minded and is also not doing anything to help the people whom the other issues do affect.
As I said earlier you can sit all day coming up with reasons why people vote, and reasons why they should vote, but you will never get a concrete answer. In the end the reasons why people vote don’t matter, because no matter how much you discuss why and how should they vote, it is never going to change the reasons that one particular person does. Everyone has their own ideas and agendas when going to the polls, and votes according to whatever logic drives them there. In the end though, everyone must remember voting is a right and a privilege. They should not take it for granted. Even though I may not agree with who the person standing next to me is voting for or for the reasons why they chose that person, I still have to remember that they are there enacting their right. They are voting on what they believe is right, as am I. So, no matter what the reason is that got you to the polls, just remember that when your done and the little old lady behind the table gives that sticker, wear it on your shirt for the rest of the day and be proud because you voted.
People may be influenced to go vote because of partisan identification. Many people feel a strong allegiance to one party or another and so they go to vote because of it. This is not wrong. Honestly, this is probably the biggest reason why I go vote. The reasons for why people identify with a certain party can vary. Many times it is because of how they were raised. If someone is raised in a predominantly Republican, or predominantly Democratic household that person is more than likely to grow up with those same predominant ties. But by doing this isn’t that person limiting themselves and failing to fully educate themselves on the whole wide range of issues and party’s? Some people identify with a certain party because they feel that party best supports the issues they care most about. For example, someone voting for the Republican party all the time because they care most about domestic security and abortion, or someone voting for the Democratic party because they are most concerned about the economy and health care. But by doing this isn’t that person ignoring other issues of looking past the individual candidates policies and just voting for the party’s general stance on issues?
Many other people vote basing their decisions solely on the issues. Many care only about one or two issues, like the aforementioned abortion or health care. These people will take this issue into their heads and think that issue and only that issue when making their decisions, choosing that candidate that best represents their stance on the issue. They may not necessarily choose because of party ID, but instead based only on the issue most important to them. Others, may look at more than one issue, but only pick issues that are going to affect them. For example, a college student looking only at issues that pertain to the rising tuition costs and other educational issues. But by doing this aren’t these people being selfish and ignoring all the other issues that they may not care as much about or that do not affect them, but do in fact affect others. There are many issues at stake whether in a local or national election, and ignoring the issues that do not concern you personally may be close minded and is also not doing anything to help the people whom the other issues do affect.
As I said earlier you can sit all day coming up with reasons why people vote, and reasons why they should vote, but you will never get a concrete answer. In the end the reasons why people vote don’t matter, because no matter how much you discuss why and how should they vote, it is never going to change the reasons that one particular person does. Everyone has their own ideas and agendas when going to the polls, and votes according to whatever logic drives them there. In the end though, everyone must remember voting is a right and a privilege. They should not take it for granted. Even though I may not agree with who the person standing next to me is voting for or for the reasons why they chose that person, I still have to remember that they are there enacting their right. They are voting on what they believe is right, as am I. So, no matter what the reason is that got you to the polls, just remember that when your done and the little old lady behind the table gives that sticker, wear it on your shirt for the rest of the day and be proud because you voted.
Sunday, October 7, 2007
The Minority
In America we are accustomed to a two party system. For the most part the power in the government belongs to two parties, the democrats and the republicans. When one of these parties is in power in the government they are called the “majority” party, and the other party is referred to as the “minority” party. The role of the majority party in government is quite obvious. They are the party in control and has the most power. But, what exactly is the role of the minority party? Do they have role? Is it an important role that even matters? Well, let’s find out.
The role of the minority party is basically to try it’s best to influence the majority and to try to get it’s policies heard and passed. When party loses an election they then step into the role of the “minority” or “opposition” party. When this happens the party then takes the role of the opposition party and does their best with it. They stay strong and confident, doing what they can, all the while having the confidence that the political system will protect their rights to organize and speak out until it is their time to campaign again.
The role of the minority party is important. Without the minority party government would be too easy. The majority party needs that opposition in order to get good work done. The minority party is able to express their ideas and position themselves in such a way that they can get their ideas and policies included. Without that the majority would pretty much have it their way too much of the time. It is important for the minority party to stay strong and try to accomplish what they can, so when they have a chance to campaign again they can have a stronger base to run and have more momentum.
The role of the minority party is basically to try it’s best to influence the majority and to try to get it’s policies heard and passed. When party loses an election they then step into the role of the “minority” or “opposition” party. When this happens the party then takes the role of the opposition party and does their best with it. They stay strong and confident, doing what they can, all the while having the confidence that the political system will protect their rights to organize and speak out until it is their time to campaign again.
The role of the minority party is important. Without the minority party government would be too easy. The majority party needs that opposition in order to get good work done. The minority party is able to express their ideas and position themselves in such a way that they can get their ideas and policies included. Without that the majority would pretty much have it their way too much of the time. It is important for the minority party to stay strong and try to accomplish what they can, so when they have a chance to campaign again they can have a stronger base to run and have more momentum.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Money Trail
As a political campaign unfolds, what is the one subject that always gets brought up when the media and pundits talk about a certain campaign? And no, I’m not talking about health care, or the Iraq war, or education, I’m talking about the behind the scenes subject that is always talked in regards to whether or not the person running for office has a legitimate shot at making it. That subject is money. People can say what they want about the issues being so important in campaigns, but the real truth is that if a candidate doesn’t have money, than they really don’t stand a chance of winning.
Today the real point of a campaign is to raise money. In the current bid for the White House, which is still in the primary stage, the two candidates who have managed to raise the most money are the two who are in the lead for their respective parties. For the Democrats the leader in campaign fund raising is Hilary Clinton. She has a commanding lead in that department over fellow democratic candidates Barak Obama and JohnEdwards. On the Republican side the leader is raising funds is former New York City Mayor, Rudy Guliani. These two have pretty fair leads in the states that have primaries early, and one of the biggest reason is they have the most money to spend on staff, ads, and they can also make more trips to the states to make speeches and stage rallies, which in turn help raise more money.
So in today’s political world the reason a person may get elected to public office is not because they are the most qualified, but because they were able to raise the most money. It’s not necessarily true in all cases, but for the most part it is the way it goes.
Today the real point of a campaign is to raise money. In the current bid for the White House, which is still in the primary stage, the two candidates who have managed to raise the most money are the two who are in the lead for their respective parties. For the Democrats the leader in campaign fund raising is Hilary Clinton. She has a commanding lead in that department over fellow democratic candidates Barak Obama and JohnEdwards. On the Republican side the leader is raising funds is former New York City Mayor, Rudy Guliani. These two have pretty fair leads in the states that have primaries early, and one of the biggest reason is they have the most money to spend on staff, ads, and they can also make more trips to the states to make speeches and stage rallies, which in turn help raise more money.
So in today’s political world the reason a person may get elected to public office is not because they are the most qualified, but because they were able to raise the most money. It’s not necessarily true in all cases, but for the most part it is the way it goes.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Primary Concerns
With the primary season heating up quicker than we’ve ever seen it before, and in unison with our class discussion on primaries, I felt now would be a good time to take a closer look at primaries and weigh in on the debate on whether they are good or bad in relation to the numerous groups primaries effect.
The first group thing we will look at is whether primaries are good for democracy or not. All in all primaries are good for democracy. While they may be complicated and confusing, they still serve a relevant purpose in our countries democratic system. Why? Because by having the system set up the way we do, with caucuses, closed primaries, open primaries, and conventions, it spreads everything out very nicely, therefore making it harder for one candidate or party to gain too much momentum in primary season. While yes that does still happen, it helps limit it. It allows the people to play a bigger part, instead of just letting the party leaders choose the candidate they like the most.
Speaking of the people, that brings me to my next point. Are primaries good for voters? Again, the answer to this question is yes. Why? Because as I stated earlier it allows the people to play a part in who the candidate is, instead of only the party leaders. While just like in the general election the people are not actually choosing the candidate, but in the primary they are voting for delegate’s to represent their state and vote for the candidate the state voted for. While not the ideal way for the people to participate, it does get them involved instead of having the old school, party leader, smokey back room, caucus.
The next group that the primary effects is the parties themselves. Are primaries good for parties? My answer to this question is no. Parties do not benefit from primaries and I’m sure they would like it better if there were no primaries. Why? Because primaries take control from the hands of the party leaders. Instead of them choosing the candidate that they feel best represents the platform they want to run on, the public and the states get to make a majority of the decision. Although, much of the time the candidate that was the front runner ends up winning the nomination anyway, I’m sure the parties would like to have to more control than they do in the primary system.
And the last group that I will review is the candidates themselves. Are primaries good for the candidates? The answer to that question is yes and no. For some candidates, especially the lesser known candidates, they can be a good thing because primaries allow them to travel to each state months before the primary and start to build yourself and make a name for themselves. But for other candidates they can be a bad thing. In the past few elections the primaries are getting closer and closer together making it hard for the candidates to spend equal time in each primary state, when seven states all have their primary on the same day. Sometimes this front loading of the primaries can kill momentum for the candidates.
So primaries, good or bad? Everyone has their opinion on it. Mine? I am in favor of them. Overall I feel they help the democratic process. And one other note before I end this, if anyone is interested in watching an interesting take on what goes on behind the scenes of a party convention, I highly recommend tracking down the episode of The West Wing television show called “2162 Votes”. This was the final episode of the shows sixth season. While it may be a bit unrealistic considering how today’s conventions go, it does feature and interesting look at how a convention might go if a party went to the convention with no clear nominee, and had to go to multiple ballots to figure it out. It may be a bit far fetched at the end, but still an enjoyable hour of television. Anyway, that’s all for now.
The first group thing we will look at is whether primaries are good for democracy or not. All in all primaries are good for democracy. While they may be complicated and confusing, they still serve a relevant purpose in our countries democratic system. Why? Because by having the system set up the way we do, with caucuses, closed primaries, open primaries, and conventions, it spreads everything out very nicely, therefore making it harder for one candidate or party to gain too much momentum in primary season. While yes that does still happen, it helps limit it. It allows the people to play a bigger part, instead of just letting the party leaders choose the candidate they like the most.
Speaking of the people, that brings me to my next point. Are primaries good for voters? Again, the answer to this question is yes. Why? Because as I stated earlier it allows the people to play a part in who the candidate is, instead of only the party leaders. While just like in the general election the people are not actually choosing the candidate, but in the primary they are voting for delegate’s to represent their state and vote for the candidate the state voted for. While not the ideal way for the people to participate, it does get them involved instead of having the old school, party leader, smokey back room, caucus.
The next group that the primary effects is the parties themselves. Are primaries good for parties? My answer to this question is no. Parties do not benefit from primaries and I’m sure they would like it better if there were no primaries. Why? Because primaries take control from the hands of the party leaders. Instead of them choosing the candidate that they feel best represents the platform they want to run on, the public and the states get to make a majority of the decision. Although, much of the time the candidate that was the front runner ends up winning the nomination anyway, I’m sure the parties would like to have to more control than they do in the primary system.
And the last group that I will review is the candidates themselves. Are primaries good for the candidates? The answer to that question is yes and no. For some candidates, especially the lesser known candidates, they can be a good thing because primaries allow them to travel to each state months before the primary and start to build yourself and make a name for themselves. But for other candidates they can be a bad thing. In the past few elections the primaries are getting closer and closer together making it hard for the candidates to spend equal time in each primary state, when seven states all have their primary on the same day. Sometimes this front loading of the primaries can kill momentum for the candidates.
So primaries, good or bad? Everyone has their opinion on it. Mine? I am in favor of them. Overall I feel they help the democratic process. And one other note before I end this, if anyone is interested in watching an interesting take on what goes on behind the scenes of a party convention, I highly recommend tracking down the episode of The West Wing television show called “2162 Votes”. This was the final episode of the shows sixth season. While it may be a bit unrealistic considering how today’s conventions go, it does feature and interesting look at how a convention might go if a party went to the convention with no clear nominee, and had to go to multiple ballots to figure it out. It may be a bit far fetched at the end, but still an enjoyable hour of television. Anyway, that’s all for now.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Game On
Ladies and gentleman welcome to the heated race that is the 2008 Presidential Election! Wait a second, does that really say the "2008 Presidential Election" or did I just make a spellig error? No, you read correctly, and I made no spelling mistake, we really are talking about the 2008 Presidential race. The '08 election may be over a year away, but already we are are hearing so much about it, and the race is becoming quite heated already that one might think the election is this November. This is quite an exciting time to be following politics.
So one might ask, if the election is over a year away why is the public being bombarded with so much information about something that is still so far way? The people don't even know who the fianl two candidates are going to be yet, but there is still so much coverage and talk about it. In my opinion there are a couple reasons for this:
1.) The '08 election presents a unique case that has not presented itself in politics for many years. The situation in '08 is that there is no imcumbent candidate running, nor is there a vice president running. In most other elections at least one side has a candidate that is pretty much pre-chosen. If the sitting president is on his first term than chances are he will run again and automatically gets the parties nomination. If the sitting president is in his second term, than in most cases the vice president will run, and he also pretty mcuh has a lock on the parties nomination. But in this election Vice President Cheney is not running therefore leaving the field wide open on both sides to select a candidate in the primary.
2.) The country is more polarized now than ever. President Bush's two terms in office have been a roller coaster ride that started with 9/11 and have taken us into the Iraq war, and everything in between. Because of everything that has happened during his presidency the country is now very divided. President Bush has hit record lows in approval ratings, and frankly all signs seem to be pointing towards the country wanting a change. Having an ongoing war that the next president will have to inherit just makes the election that much more high profile. Knowing that this president will not be finishing the war makes the media and the public that much more interested in what the possible future president will be doing with it, therefore lifting the profile of the election to new heights for this stage in the race.
As I stated earlier this is quite an exciting time to be following politics, and specifically this election. Just this past week after General Petreaus gave his update on the Iraq war, Republican candidate Rudy Giuliani attacked Democratic candidate Hilary Clinton over her remarks regarding the General's report. With stories like this one would think that Giuliani and Clinton had one their parties respective nominations and were the only two candidates. This is usually the time in the campaign when you hear the candidates take shots at the others running for thier parties nomination, but then again this is no ordinary election.
I strongly urge everyone to start following this election closely. If it's so enjoyable to follow at this stage just imagine how much interesting it's going to get in the next year plus. All I have to say to the candidates is, GAME ON!
So one might ask, if the election is over a year away why is the public being bombarded with so much information about something that is still so far way? The people don't even know who the fianl two candidates are going to be yet, but there is still so much coverage and talk about it. In my opinion there are a couple reasons for this:
1.) The '08 election presents a unique case that has not presented itself in politics for many years. The situation in '08 is that there is no imcumbent candidate running, nor is there a vice president running. In most other elections at least one side has a candidate that is pretty much pre-chosen. If the sitting president is on his first term than chances are he will run again and automatically gets the parties nomination. If the sitting president is in his second term, than in most cases the vice president will run, and he also pretty mcuh has a lock on the parties nomination. But in this election Vice President Cheney is not running therefore leaving the field wide open on both sides to select a candidate in the primary.
2.) The country is more polarized now than ever. President Bush's two terms in office have been a roller coaster ride that started with 9/11 and have taken us into the Iraq war, and everything in between. Because of everything that has happened during his presidency the country is now very divided. President Bush has hit record lows in approval ratings, and frankly all signs seem to be pointing towards the country wanting a change. Having an ongoing war that the next president will have to inherit just makes the election that much more high profile. Knowing that this president will not be finishing the war makes the media and the public that much more interested in what the possible future president will be doing with it, therefore lifting the profile of the election to new heights for this stage in the race.
As I stated earlier this is quite an exciting time to be following politics, and specifically this election. Just this past week after General Petreaus gave his update on the Iraq war, Republican candidate Rudy Giuliani attacked Democratic candidate Hilary Clinton over her remarks regarding the General's report. With stories like this one would think that Giuliani and Clinton had one their parties respective nominations and were the only two candidates. This is usually the time in the campaign when you hear the candidates take shots at the others running for thier parties nomination, but then again this is no ordinary election.
I strongly urge everyone to start following this election closely. If it's so enjoyable to follow at this stage just imagine how much interesting it's going to get in the next year plus. All I have to say to the candidates is, GAME ON!
Sunday, September 9, 2007
The Party
In today's society which political party a person belongs to is becoming a more and more important issue. The country may be more polarized than it has ever been before and therefore that may lead to some spirited debates regarding which politcal party a person belongs too. But have you ever stopped to wonder what exactly a politcal party is?
According to the website Wikipedia a political party is "
a political organization that subscribes to a certain ideology and seeks to attain political power within a government. The party's policies often represent an aggregation of interests within the party, which will inevitably vary considerably even between party members. In certain electoral situations, more common in elections using proportional representation than First Past the Post, a government may be formed of more than one party, called a coalition government."
Overall, this is a good definition of what a politcal party truly is. The two main parties today, the Democrats and the Republicans, are very good examples of this definition. Both parties seek to attain political power in the government, and there are a general set of beliefs that the parties subscribe to. But while that general set of beliefs serves as a basis for most members of the party, it does not restrict every member of the party to have the exact same beliefs. We see a good example of that in our government every day right now due to the amount of support that President Bush has lost from his own party. Many members of the Republican party don't agree with his current actions, especially in the matter of the war in Iraq. But this shows that while all those people may belong to the same party, they do not all share the exact same beliefs. That is the beauty of our country and the way it set up, everyone can have their own beliefs and opinions, but for the most are all able to peacefully co-exist.
According to the website Wikipedia a political party is "
a political organization that subscribes to a certain ideology and seeks to attain political power within a government. The party's policies often represent an aggregation of interests within the party, which will inevitably vary considerably even between party members. In certain electoral situations, more common in elections using proportional representation than First Past the Post, a government may be formed of more than one party, called a coalition government."
Overall, this is a good definition of what a politcal party truly is. The two main parties today, the Democrats and the Republicans, are very good examples of this definition. Both parties seek to attain political power in the government, and there are a general set of beliefs that the parties subscribe to. But while that general set of beliefs serves as a basis for most members of the party, it does not restrict every member of the party to have the exact same beliefs. We see a good example of that in our government every day right now due to the amount of support that President Bush has lost from his own party. Many members of the Republican party don't agree with his current actions, especially in the matter of the war in Iraq. But this shows that while all those people may belong to the same party, they do not all share the exact same beliefs. That is the beauty of our country and the way it set up, everyone can have their own beliefs and opinions, but for the most are all able to peacefully co-exist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)