Megan Luckey - July 9th, 2012
I believe television has already influenced how we vote. Not only do we have access to various news channels that cover elections, but we are also subject to commercials by the candidates. I feel television is beneficial for elections for those who use the proper resources. If Americans are more informed, they will be more likely to vote from a candidate who would be valuable to our country.
It could also influence voters because if they see a commercial they like or dislike, it could effect how they vote. However, It could also hinder how we vote. Before television, many people read the newspaper and listened to the radio, and were therefore more informed about the news. Now, television is used primarily for entertainment value.
Internet will similarly change our politics. It has changed media completely, with the majority of people now receiving their news and information from it. With information being more readily available, we can have more educated voters. Internet also changes politics in that it can help candidates gather financial and voter support. Through internet, candidates are able to advertise more. This could change politics because it is a great way to reach thousands of voters at one time. It could also potentially increase voter turnout in elections.
Being able to receive donations for candidacy at the click of a button is something that had never been done before the internet. It utilized correctly, this alone would alter the outcome of an election. Having money can sometimes be the difference between winning and losing. As seen in the election between Obama vs. McCain, being up to date on technology and knowing your voters can have a huge impact on an election. Obama employed the internet and gained significant support though it. During the election, ads for the Obama campaign sprinkled pages all over the net. It is questionable whether Obama would have won had the internet not existed.
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
The Electoral College.
Megan Luckey
July 9th, 2012
* Note: The ideas in the article are not my own and have been adopted from those with much greater minds than I ;)
Upon research, I noticed the most popular opinion held by Americans about the Electoral College involves replacing it completely with a direct popular vote. Many people like this idea because it represents the idea of majority rule; however, this would not be an appropriate replacement for the Electoral College as it does not adequately represent minorities. I believe instead of completely replacing it, perhaps it should simply be mended and altered to better accommodate the country in its present state.
The largest problem people seem to have with the Electoral College lies with the fact the outcome of elections is greatly exaggerated in comparison to the popular vote. In order to solve this and still keep power within the Electoral College, we would need to balance the difference between the two outcomes, so it is relatively equal. The constitution currently gives each state a number of electors for the Electoral College based on the number of representatives and senators it has. I think instead of granting electors based on both representatives and senators, they should be granted based on the amount of representative alone. This would represent population better, and would therefore follow more closely with the popular vote.
Another way to help solve problems that lie with the Electoral College would be to make the winner-take-all system nationwide. When people vote for president, the president is generally part of a political party. If the political party the winner belongs to gets to choose all electors for the state, the electors are more likely to vote along with popular vote.
An additional method to ensure electors follow popular vote without taking away from minority rights would be to require all electors to vote as they have pledged, if legally possible. I think electors should be able to vote at state elections like any other person, and nothing more. Giving electors the power to vote as they choose in the Electoral College gives them too much power. If they were forced to vote as they pledged, they would have just as much say in the elections as any other person.
The current laws have it so if no majority is reached in the Electoral College, the decision is sent to be made by Congress. This leaves the House of Representative to select the president, and the Senate to choose the Vice President. In the House, each state only gets one vote, which completely misrepresents states of different sizes. In order to solve this, each state should get votes based on its number of representatives.
With all these changes made, I believe the problems people have with the Electoral College would be fewer. Consequently, it would more closely resemble popular vote without taking away from minority rights. With this as a solution, we would still be able to retain all the advantages of having an Electoral College, while eliminating some of the disadvantages.
July 9th, 2012
* Note: The ideas in the article are not my own and have been adopted from those with much greater minds than I ;)
Upon research, I noticed the most popular opinion held by Americans about the Electoral College involves replacing it completely with a direct popular vote. Many people like this idea because it represents the idea of majority rule; however, this would not be an appropriate replacement for the Electoral College as it does not adequately represent minorities. I believe instead of completely replacing it, perhaps it should simply be mended and altered to better accommodate the country in its present state.
The largest problem people seem to have with the Electoral College lies with the fact the outcome of elections is greatly exaggerated in comparison to the popular vote. In order to solve this and still keep power within the Electoral College, we would need to balance the difference between the two outcomes, so it is relatively equal. The constitution currently gives each state a number of electors for the Electoral College based on the number of representatives and senators it has. I think instead of granting electors based on both representatives and senators, they should be granted based on the amount of representative alone. This would represent population better, and would therefore follow more closely with the popular vote.
Another way to help solve problems that lie with the Electoral College would be to make the winner-take-all system nationwide. When people vote for president, the president is generally part of a political party. If the political party the winner belongs to gets to choose all electors for the state, the electors are more likely to vote along with popular vote.
An additional method to ensure electors follow popular vote without taking away from minority rights would be to require all electors to vote as they have pledged, if legally possible. I think electors should be able to vote at state elections like any other person, and nothing more. Giving electors the power to vote as they choose in the Electoral College gives them too much power. If they were forced to vote as they pledged, they would have just as much say in the elections as any other person.
The current laws have it so if no majority is reached in the Electoral College, the decision is sent to be made by Congress. This leaves the House of Representative to select the president, and the Senate to choose the Vice President. In the House, each state only gets one vote, which completely misrepresents states of different sizes. In order to solve this, each state should get votes based on its number of representatives.
With all these changes made, I believe the problems people have with the Electoral College would be fewer. Consequently, it would more closely resemble popular vote without taking away from minority rights. With this as a solution, we would still be able to retain all the advantages of having an Electoral College, while eliminating some of the disadvantages.
Executive Privilege: Too Far?
Megan Luckey
July, 17th, 2012****
In September of 2009, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) set into motion an operation controversial to the people of the United States. This operation was known as "Fast and Furious." It allowed U.S. weapons to be given to suspected gun smugglers in order for the guns to be traced back to Mexican drug cartels. The AFT lost track of these weapons, leading to the death of a border patrol agent whom I will not name out of respect.
Two years later, the investigation continues. Currently [note date of article], the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is offering a reward up to one million dollars for information leading to the arrest of Agent Terry's murderers (U.S Attorney's Office). The indictment of the men charged with the border patrol agent's murder has been unsealed, or released to the public, in the hopes someone will be able to come forward with useful information, potentially leading to the arrest and closure of this two-year long case. The family simply wishes for the documents involving Operation Fast and Furious to be released so whoever approved the operation may be held accountable for their actions.
The controversial issue here is President Obama asserting executive privilege over the documents. Executive Privilege is not a power given to the president by the U.S. constitution (Politics: Executive Branch). My question is what gives the president the right to assert executive privilege? Is this giving the president too much power over the other branches? Should the president have used his executive privilege for this particular operation?
Since the failure of the operation, congressional republicans have been waging an ongoing war with Attorney General Eric Holder for the release of the Fast and Furious documents. Darrell Issa, chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform [side note: my professor ran against him in the election, how cool is that?], has been the most adamant in demanding the release of the documents. Specifically, Issa wants the documents from the Department of Justice's investigation of operation Fast and Furious. Holder refused to release the documents, leading to the House Committee's vote recommending Holder be held for contempt of court. The president, in response to this and by Holder's request, asserted his executive privilege.
Executive privilege is the presidential right to withhold executive communication documents from the other two branches of government (The Associated Press). Executive privilege is not absolute and can be overruled if the documentation is needed for evidence in a criminal trial. Many presidents have asserted their right to executive privilege over the years various time, though rarely have they been overturned.
Generally, when executive privilege is under question as it is now, the executive branch and legislatures come to a compromise. In this case, I think it is unlikely Holder will be charged with anything. If they do go to court for it, it is possible the deliberative process privilege used by Obama may not hold up. If this happens, documentation on the operation would then be released.
In a case such as this, I think the family of the deceased at least have the right to know who was responsible for the approval of the operation that lead to their loved one's death; additionally, I believe documentation should be released because it may help lead to the arrest of the border patrol agent's murderers. I understand Obama wants to keep anything that could reflect poorly on him quiet during election time, but I am wondering if it is even constitutional for him to withhold such information. With so many people opposed to his decision of executive privilege, I wonder if the president's power is becoming too great.
There is no evidence to suggest the White House had any involvement with the operation; therefore, it is mind-boggling as to why the president would go to such lengths to withhold documentation on it (Politics: Executive Branch). I do not personally believe there is a conspiracy theory here, but I also do not condone the president using his executive privilege in this particular instance. Please note this is the first time President Obama has asserted his executive privilege since taking office.
While the idea behind the operation may have been noble, it has obviously escalated way out of control. Not only did many people die because our government willingly handed thousands of powerful weapons to criminals, it has also turned into a huge political debauchery over who has more power. It is an embarrassment to our government and our country. The documents should just be released, and all parties involved accept the consequences for their actions instead of acting like children. Whatever is contained in those documents is obviously of some degree of importance and I would like to see them put to good use.
The fact the president is deliberately going against the wishes of the citizens of the United States by withholding the records does not bode well for him either. The mere fact he has the power to keep such important documents from us and the branches are currently unable to do anything about it worries me. If the branches of government cannot use their system of checks and balances properly, what are they there for?
Bibliography
Office, U.S. Attorney's. "Phoenix Division." 9 July 2012. The Federal Bureau of Investigation. http://www.fbi.gov/phoenix/press-releases/2012/five-individuals-charged-in-connection-with-death-of-a-customs-and-border-protection-border-patrol-agent-1-million-fbi-reward-announced. 17 July 2012
"Politics: Executive Branch." 20 June 2012. Fox News. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/20/what-is-executive-privilege. 17 July 2012.
Press, The Associated. "National News." 10 July 2012. ABC Local. http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/national_world&id=8731223. 17 July 2012
*** If anyone has an update for this story it would be greatly appreciated
July, 17th, 2012****
In September of 2009, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) set into motion an operation controversial to the people of the United States. This operation was known as "Fast and Furious." It allowed U.S. weapons to be given to suspected gun smugglers in order for the guns to be traced back to Mexican drug cartels. The AFT lost track of these weapons, leading to the death of a border patrol agent whom I will not name out of respect.
Two years later, the investigation continues. Currently [note date of article], the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is offering a reward up to one million dollars for information leading to the arrest of Agent Terry's murderers (U.S Attorney's Office). The indictment of the men charged with the border patrol agent's murder has been unsealed, or released to the public, in the hopes someone will be able to come forward with useful information, potentially leading to the arrest and closure of this two-year long case. The family simply wishes for the documents involving Operation Fast and Furious to be released so whoever approved the operation may be held accountable for their actions.
The controversial issue here is President Obama asserting executive privilege over the documents. Executive Privilege is not a power given to the president by the U.S. constitution (Politics: Executive Branch). My question is what gives the president the right to assert executive privilege? Is this giving the president too much power over the other branches? Should the president have used his executive privilege for this particular operation?
Since the failure of the operation, congressional republicans have been waging an ongoing war with Attorney General Eric Holder for the release of the Fast and Furious documents. Darrell Issa, chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform [side note: my professor ran against him in the election, how cool is that?], has been the most adamant in demanding the release of the documents. Specifically, Issa wants the documents from the Department of Justice's investigation of operation Fast and Furious. Holder refused to release the documents, leading to the House Committee's vote recommending Holder be held for contempt of court. The president, in response to this and by Holder's request, asserted his executive privilege.
Executive privilege is the presidential right to withhold executive communication documents from the other two branches of government (The Associated Press). Executive privilege is not absolute and can be overruled if the documentation is needed for evidence in a criminal trial. Many presidents have asserted their right to executive privilege over the years various time, though rarely have they been overturned.
Generally, when executive privilege is under question as it is now, the executive branch and legislatures come to a compromise. In this case, I think it is unlikely Holder will be charged with anything. If they do go to court for it, it is possible the deliberative process privilege used by Obama may not hold up. If this happens, documentation on the operation would then be released.
In a case such as this, I think the family of the deceased at least have the right to know who was responsible for the approval of the operation that lead to their loved one's death; additionally, I believe documentation should be released because it may help lead to the arrest of the border patrol agent's murderers. I understand Obama wants to keep anything that could reflect poorly on him quiet during election time, but I am wondering if it is even constitutional for him to withhold such information. With so many people opposed to his decision of executive privilege, I wonder if the president's power is becoming too great.
There is no evidence to suggest the White House had any involvement with the operation; therefore, it is mind-boggling as to why the president would go to such lengths to withhold documentation on it (Politics: Executive Branch). I do not personally believe there is a conspiracy theory here, but I also do not condone the president using his executive privilege in this particular instance. Please note this is the first time President Obama has asserted his executive privilege since taking office.
While the idea behind the operation may have been noble, it has obviously escalated way out of control. Not only did many people die because our government willingly handed thousands of powerful weapons to criminals, it has also turned into a huge political debauchery over who has more power. It is an embarrassment to our government and our country. The documents should just be released, and all parties involved accept the consequences for their actions instead of acting like children. Whatever is contained in those documents is obviously of some degree of importance and I would like to see them put to good use.
The fact the president is deliberately going against the wishes of the citizens of the United States by withholding the records does not bode well for him either. The mere fact he has the power to keep such important documents from us and the branches are currently unable to do anything about it worries me. If the branches of government cannot use their system of checks and balances properly, what are they there for?
Bibliography
Office, U.S. Attorney's. "Phoenix Division." 9 July 2012. The Federal Bureau of Investigation. http://www.fbi.gov/phoenix/press-releases/2012/five-individuals-charged-in-connection-with-death-of-a-customs-and-border-protection-border-patrol-agent-1-million-fbi-reward-announced. 17 July 2012
"Politics: Executive Branch." 20 June 2012. Fox News. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/20/what-is-executive-privilege. 17 July 2012.
Press, The Associated. "National News." 10 July 2012. ABC Local. http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/national_world&id=8731223. 17 July 2012
*** If anyone has an update for this story it would be greatly appreciated
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)