Improving Voter Participation

Voter participation is very low. While America defines itself as a democracy, it is hard to back this assertion up when such little of its population participates in electing the leaders of our country. According the CNN, only approximately 51% of our population votes, a staggering low number. Citizens feel that their vote really doesn’t matter in the large scheme of things, however the democracy of the United States is hurt by not having a majority of the population voting. I believe that this lack of participation is embarrassing, and I am relieved that people are addressing this issue and examine way to fix it. 

As an eighteen-year old high school student, the most humiliating statistic is the number of eligible youth voters. Jessica Babtsite reports that only 42% of eligible voters between ages eighteen to twenty-four vote. Personally, it does not surprise me that this number is so low. It seems as if politicians have neglected to reach out and connect the young people of America, and they have left us hanging. Most kids are indifferent about how our country is run, mostly because people have never cared to inform them. However, the problem is on both sides. Young people need to understand that it is pertinent to participate in the democracy that America has provided, and politicians need to understand that the young people of American have opinions and they do matter.
In 1990, an organization called Rock the Vote was created to improve the statistic of youth voting. The program informed kids, and encouraged them to vote. This program also awoken the politicians, and made them understand how necessary it is to address the youth of America. In 1992, just two years after the program started, there was nearly a 20% increase in youth voting. In 2004, 1.2 million young people voted in the presidential election. In 2008, 2.25 million young people voted. However in 2012, the level of youth voting stayed the same. As numbers have increased though, there is no doubt in my mind that despite the recent turnout in 2012, numbers in youth participation will continue to rise.

Social media has as well begun to influence voter turn out. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, blogs, vlogs, and Youtube, and email have all greatly manipulated not only the Presidential elections, but also any government election across the world. In an article on Voice of America, an online news site, James Fowler proclaims just how social media can influence an election. He says that he once received an email that said, “There was also a link that you could click on that allowed you to look up your polling place. And in some of the messages we also showed people the pictures of their friends who

Social Media

had clicked on the ‘I Voted’ button earlier in the day.” Social media affects both sides of elections, the voters and the candidates. Voters can become very informed on any candidate within seconds, as well as develop opinions on candidates within seconds. Social media has allowed voters to connect to their candidates like never before. On the other hand, candidates can also connect with their people like never before as well. They can get a feel for what the people are feeling and what people’s opinions are. Through social media, it is much easier for candidates to conform to the idea of everyone, rather than just the people they meet face to face. All of the connections created by social media have definitely influenced voter turnout, and it has definitely increased the numbers.

There is no doubt in my mind that by addressing the issue of voter participation and creating ways to improve numbers such as Rock the Vote or social media tactics, voter participation will continue to rise. I predict that both youth participation and total voter turnout will be at its greatest percentage by the 2016 elections. I know I will definitely be voting for the first time!

Super PACs aren’t so Super

Political fundraising is one of the most important aspects of the elections process.  This year’s presidential election is shaping up to be the most expensive ever.  The presidential candidates have already accumulated over $330 million, and they are expecting much more to come.  All this money can be attributed to the huge influence Super PACs have had on elections.  Super PACs have the power to potentially define the outcome of elections.    

A PAC, or political action committee,  is an organization that campaigns for or against political candidates by donating at least $1000.  Until recently, outside groups were limited to contribute $100,000 on behalf of one candidate.  However, the Supreme Court ruled in the case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that the federal government may not ban political spending by outside organizations or corporations.  This resulted in the rise of Super PACs, or “independent-expenditure only committees”.  Although the Super PACs cannot directly contribute to candidate campaigns, they are allowed to engage in independent political spending without any legal limits.

What exactly do these Super PACs do with all this money?  Most of them utilize the ability to solely go on the attack against the opposing candidates.  The most common and effective form of attacking is putting out negative ads against the opponent.

For example, conservative billionaire Joe Ricketts is planning to fund a $10 million campaign to bring down Barack Obama titled, “The Defeat of Barack Hussein Obama, the Rickets Plan to End His Spending for Good.” Ricketts primary concern is to end the budget deficit.  The campaign is a 54-page proposal that essentially claims that Obama has misled the American people by portraying himself as a “metrosexual, black Abe Lincoln.”  In addition, the plan is to bring up past ties between controversial Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Obama in order to show how Obama’s ideologies have been negatively influenced from the beginning.  This anti-Obama campaign has the potential to destroy his public image, which proves that Super PACs have the potential to define the outcome of elections.

This year’s election has been greatly influenced by a plethora of Super PACs that have already contributed $100 million.  These Super PACs have led to one of the nastiest elections to date because of the flood of negative ads that they have leaked to the public.  The negative ads are actually detrimental to democracy because they deter people from participating in the elections process.  Super PACs undermine the basic principles of political equality because they take the power out of the hands of the people and place it in the deep pockets of an elite group donors.

“Which side should I support?”

Should I support gay marriage or oppose it?  This is a question that President Obama has had to ask himself recently in the 2012 Presidential election.  President Obama has been on the fence for the past few weeks until recently claiming he supports gay marriage, but his behavior makes me question whether his personal beliefs made the decision or whether his party’s beliefs did.  Vice President Joe Biden had been known for supporting gay marriage while his president was somewhat neutral about the subject.  The question that keeps re-occurring to me is; why did President Obama suddenly choose a side and how did he make his decision in such a short period of time?

Our study of parties and political outlooks this unit has helped me to answer this question.  I choose to be independent meaning I don’t affiliate with either party.  Like President Obama, I have not taken a side to the gay marriage battle and I simply don’t care to because it isn’t as important to me and my life as other issues that are being debated.  I think President Obama may share the same beliefs as I do, but running for re-election requires him to take a side.  His choice to support gay marriage has been argued to have been influenced by Vice President Biden, the homosexual liberal community, etc., but I believe it was his party’s values that chose his mind for him.  Learning about judicial philosophies in Government this past week has helped me understand how presidents choose sides on an issue they seem to be indifferent about.  This past week, I had to read, compare, and contrast the two main competing judicial philosophies: flexible interpretation and original intent.  Flexible interpretation means the members of the judicial system honor the Constitution in a more flexible way while original intent is when the member honor the Constitution word-for-word.  Although his decision had no relevance to the judicial system, the democratic party has an almost entirely liberal outlook which means flexible interpretation is used more often.  Conservatives argue a man marring a man or a woman marring a woman are unconstitutional, but the democrats use flexible interpretation to make what they feel is the correct choice is today’s context and community.

President Barack Obama may have chosen the way he did for publicity or for votes, but I believe he chose the way he did to honor his party’s beliefs rather than his own.  I was able to come to this conclusion from our studies of the judicial branch and how they make their decisions according to their interpretation of constitution.  President Obama is using his party’s method of interpretation to choose what would attract more democrats and liberals to his beliefs gaining him more support.  Also by following his party’s values, he gains support from the large homosexual community in America.  Because of our judicial unit, I see why President Obama has used the liberal judicial form of making choices to make his own choices in the 2012 Presidential Election.

Newt is in the Hole and out of the Race

Through out the past couple of weeks I have been going through our Government blog and I have seen many posts related to Money and its effects on elections.  I guess this came with good timing because after hearing about the news of Newt Gingrich suspending his campaign, I saw the connection.  This specific connection interested me  because it amazed me that an idea that we learned in Government class would still be present when I flipped on the TV when I got home.  Although there are many reason for Newt dropping out, like staying at a steady fourth place in the poles, the primary reason is his four million dollar campaign debt.  We did learn a lot about how money affects elections but I will reflect about how money affected the Newt Gingrich campaign for the Presidential race of 2012.

In class we discussed as a group whether or not we agree that money is a corrupting  factor  in elections currently.  In my opinion, I think that candidates should be limited to the amount of money they can spend on their campaign.  This is the only way to ensure that candidates are voted on because of their values and ideas rather than who has more money, which is not what being the President is about.  Currently the candidate who made the most money this past year is on his way to be the Republican candidate for the upcoming election (Mitt Rommney made 41.5 million dollars last year).  This shows how much of an impact money is on the outcome of an election.  Also, it will prevent candidates from getting in a great amount of debt like Newt Gingrich did.

Now, to relate this concept of how money is spent in elections to Newt’s campaign.  Obviously, the ideal campaign not only wins, but also manages to raise more money than they spend.  However, Newt Gingrich was successful on none of these levels.  On top on getting the fourth spot of the Republican Presidential nomination, Newt Gingrich has managed to be over four million dollars in debt.  The chart below is taken from the website Open Secrets, and it shows that Newt’s campaign could not raise enough to keep up with how much they were spending.  This is very significant because they managed to raise over twenty-two million dollars.  Clearly, Newt’s campaign did not manage their money, which helps return to starting argument, that campaigns should have cap in which they can spend so unsuccessful campaigns like Newt’s do have to struggle in debt.

In conclusion, I would like to reiterate the true importance that money has on campaigns and how its can affect a great candidate like Newt Gingrich.  It is also necessary to recognize that money is not the only factor the Presidential candidates have to deal with during an election, however this current event allowed for a perfect example to exemplify how money can effect a candidates chances at becoming the President.

A Race for Votes or a Race for resources?

An interesting thing that I have learned in government this trimester is how much work goes into a political race, but what caught my attention even more was how much time a candidate and his or her team spend on trying to accumulate resources.  I have learned that the major resources that candidates go for is money, advertisements, Internet traffic, endorsements, volunteers and support from notable people.  These resources will eventually win equate to votes in the election.  There are way too many people in the United States for a candidate to reach out to by him or herself and win their vote.  As technology improves more and more candidates are gaining more resources at their disposal.

All of these resources are all centered around Candidates getting their image and beliefs out to the public.  TV ads are very expensive but are also very effective because they can display all of their policies and have images to help sway voters.  Candidates also go for “free” advertisements on the Internet and by famous people or companies.  Even though the Internet is free candidates spend thousands on good-looking websites, but the free aspect comes from social media buzz.  Social media buzz can also be categorized as volunteers, because individuals create this by making facebook pages, amateur youtube videos and show support for their candidate on blogs.  I’ve come to learn that although it seems like these social media buzzes are random and spontaneous; they are actually carefully planned by candidates in order to get free advertising.  An example of this is when, “Mitt Romney stuck out his hand and challenged Rick Perry to a $10,000 bet at a Republican presidential debate Saturday night, prompting Perry to decline because he is not in the betting business.”  Romney did this because he knew that such an unorthodox thing to do at a debate would raise a lot of talk in the news and on the web.  His hope was to get people talking about how certain he is on his facts, but the majority of the Internet talk shifted towards how “snobby” it was of him to throw around such big amounts of money.  This is the gamble candidates take when they attempt to create free advertising through the Internet, but if successful it can have a huge payoff.

After the initial projects we did on political campaigning sparked my interest, we started on a bigger project of working on a mock campaign team.  In doing this I have learned the importance of appearance.  Our main strategy is to make everything as eye catching and unique as possible in order to stand out.  On a much smaller scale we are have the same though process as political candidates.  By making that $10,000 bet, weather it created negative or positive media for Mitt Romney, it allowed him to stand out.  Without his big gamble I would not have mentioned him in my post and he would not of received the free advertising on my behalf weather I support him or not.

Click here to keep track of who’s on top money wise