The 2013 UN Press Conference

By: Katherine Szetu, Ibis Almada, John Mark Shorack, and Paul Ji.

 

The UN just held their 2013 press conference where they talked about nuclear proliferation. Representatives of different nations came forward to express their nation’s stand on the possession of nuclear weapons. At the end of the meeting, they came to a conclusion as a community, and held a press conference where they talked about their concluding proposals. The Secretary of State of the United States was present during the whole process.

 

The Secretary of State is the President’s chief foreign affairs adviser.

• Serves as the President’s principal adviser on U.S. foreign policy;
• Conducts negotiations relating to U.S. foreign affairs;
• Grants and issues passports to American citizens and exequaturs to foreign consuls in the United States;
• Advises the President on the appointment of U.S. ambassadors, ministers, consuls, and other diplomatic representatives;
• Advises the President regarding the acceptance, recall, and dismissal of the representatives of foreign governments;
• Personally participates in or directs U.S. representatives to international conferences, organizations, and agencies;
• Negotiates, interprets, and terminates treaties and agreements;
• Ensures the protection of the U.S. Government to American citizens, property, and interests in foreign countries;
• Supervises the administration of U.S. immigration laws abroad;
• Provides information to American citizens regarding the political, economic, social, cultural, and humanitarian conditions in foreign countries;
• Informs the Congress and American citizens on the conduct of U.S. foreign relations;
• Promotes beneficial economic intercourse between the United States and other countries;
• Administers the Department of State;
• Supervises the Foreign Service of the United States.

http://www.state.gov/secretary/115194.htm

 

These were the positions that each nation held:

 

U.S. Secretary of State:
The United States was the first country to develop nuclear weapons. We were the only ones to actually use them on human targets. That is why we know the consequences that nuclear weapons bring more than anybody else in the world. On April 5th, at the Prague Speech, President Obama called for the United States to lead international effort toward a world free of nuclear weapons. As one of the two large powers responsible for the creation of such a myriad of nuclear weapons, the United States feel responsible in getting rid of them now.
Although many analysts say that the geopolitical conditions do not permit the global elimination of nuclear weapons, the President and I believe that a gradual reduction of such weapons will reap benefits, slowly but most definitely, in the coming future. It is extremely hard and costly to safely and environmentally to successfully get rid of nuclear weapons. I propose that all the nations of the world come together to start getting rid of the nuclear weapons: first by making sure no more are produced, second by getting rid of the nuclear weapons that they already have in position.

 

Foreign Minister of North Korea:
We have always wanted to own a nuclear weapon. We have always had the resources and manpower to achieve such a deed, but the disagreements and snide remarks from other countries have made us hesitate. In that short time of hesitation, the other worlds started to boom and prosper while the only thing that prospered is our barren lands! Our leader is not happy by this fact and wishes to be granted the right to create and own their nuclear weapons.
Our leader was so generous to offer that he will only use it to maintain peace and intimidate his enemies. He also said that he does not care what the final decision is because he is going to use the uranium they were able to get to make their own nuclear weapon whether the rest of the world agrees or not. We already have the knowledge, technology, and the resources to make it. It would be wise for the world to just let us have it.

 

Foreign Minister of Russia:
Russia, in 1968, accompanying Great Britain and the United States signed the Non-Proliferation Act. This act states that the countries that already possess nuclear weapons must slowly move towards disarmament, including Russia and the United States.
Russia, recognized as one of the five-nuclear countries, still maintains a position of slowly lowering the amount of nuclear weapons in the world and in our country. This is why they signed the Non-Proliferation Act in 1968. Their goal is to move towards the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. However, they do not wish to renew the Cooperative Threat Reduction Act which has the purpose “to secure and dismantle weapons of mass destruction and their associated infrastructure in former Soviet Union states.” Russia, wants to with its own money and economy deal with their nuclear weapons.

 

Foreign Minister of France
Guided by the principle “to strive for a safer world and a more just international order founded on the rule of law and collective security, to prevent threats to peace, to respect the right of self-defence, to opt out of the arms race and move towards general and complete disarmament.” France is against nuclear proliferation. Since always France has made sure they keep their nuclear usage at low as possible.
France has been and example, sided by the United Kingdom on nuclear disarmament. They were the first country to sign the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), the first to decide to shut down any of the places they had that were being used to build nuclear weapons and missiles. In 2008 France voluntarily reduced the number of their nuclear ballistic missile submarines by one-third. When France had the presidency of the European Union (2008) it committed to making sure that Europe would have initiatives for disarmament.

 

Foreign minister of China:
The Chinese nuclear program started in the mid-1950s and In 1964, China conducted its first nuclear weapon test. It possesses some 400 nuclear weapons and a variety of short-range and intercontinental ballistic missiles. However, It is the only nuclear weapons state to adhere to a policy of no-first use of nuclear weapons. In 1992 China acceded to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as a nuclear-weapon state (NWS) and is the only NWS that has ratified the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Additional Protocol.
Even Though, China has sponsored many disarmament resolutions in the United Nations, its actions prove the contrary. China has modernize its nuclear arsenal, in addition to increasing its military capabilities, and despite promises to ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, it continues to maintain its nuclear test site. In addition, China was also a proliferator to countries such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia in the 1980s and 1990s, which led the United States to exert pressure on the country to adhere to international nonproliferation treaties, and especially export controls regime. Most importantly, as a mediator between the United States and North Korea, China has been one of the main players in the Six-Party talks on North Korea’s nuclear weapons program.

 

The following is what the assembly concluded:

 

UN press information officer:
It has come to our attention that there are several nations that agree on the fact that nuclear proliferation might cause future problems, and that they wish to reduce the amount of nuclear arms in the world. However, there were couple of nations that wanted to have nuclear technology, and even though many of the other nations have tried to convince them out of it, they stood firm on their stands. As a world community, we should all take a look at history and learn from our pasts. The United States, as the only nation to use nuclear power against an actual enemy, stated that they know better than anyone of the destructiveness of the weapons. There is nothing they regret more than using such drastic measures. They lament the losses and developmental setbacks that Japan has had to go through. Furthermore, the Russian Foreign Minister has talked about the Cold War and how they were able to accumulate such a nuclear force that they combined with the United States could explode the whole Earth 27 times. In addition to their statement, however, they pointed out that such an explosive power did not give them much in return. Both nations saw the dangers in using even one single nuclear warhead, and the possibility of a World War III, which would practically mean the end of the world. With all that said, the majority of the United Nations believe that we should strive toward a non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Our jointed efforts and resources should go to the dismantling and removing of all the existing nuclear weapons. As a community, we can agree that there are more than enough nuclear warheads already circulating between us. The United States, France, and Russia have been acting as the forerunners in the efforts to rid the world of such powers. The other two states, with some of the other nations who still advocate for nuclear proliferation, must take into account that no matter what their motives, there can no longer be any production of such a weapon of mass destruction. However, the rest of the governments have agreed to co-own the nuclear weapons with such governments in order to stop production, but only to fulfill their desire to have nuclear power. The co-owning nation will not have exclusivity nor complete power over what happens with the weapons; they will be subject to and strictly supervised by the whole UN General Assembly, and each nation will be assigned a collateral. The collateral will hold the ultimate passkey or activation code for the nuclear warhead, and in order for the other nation to use the nuclear weapon, they would need to get clearance from their collateral. The nations who oppose non-proliferation will be forced to sign a pact against the reconstruction of such weapons, and asked to give up their complete authority over their current nuclear weapons, if they have them. Any nation in the UN that reject this proposal will be subject to expulsion from the alliance, and may be declared as international threat.

A Modest Proposal

By: Katherine Szetu, Ibis Almada, John Mark Shorack, and Paul Ji.

 

In this project, we researched the 2011 U.S. Federal Budget.

 

The total budget in dollars: $3,834,000,000,000

The budget in percentages by categories:

• Security: 23.2%
• Non-Security: 13.6%
• Social Security: 19.2%
• Medicare: 12.8%
• Medicaid: 7.6%
• Troubled Asset Relief Program: 0.4%
• Allowances for Jobs Initiatives: 0.8%
• Allowance for health reform: *
• Other mandatory programs: 16.0%

The budget divided into mandatory (uncontrollable) and discretionary (controllable) spending:

-Mandatory

• Social Security
• Medicare
• Medicaid
• Troubled Asset Relief Program
• Allowances for Jobs Initiative
• Other mandatory programs

-Discretionary

• Security
• Non-security

How much of the budget is mandatory spending?

• $2,165,000,000,000

How much of the budget is discretionary spending?

• $1,415,000,000,000

How might we spend the discretionary spending?

• We would spend the discretionary federal funds mostly on security to ensure that no attack occurs on the mainland, as well as improving the lifestyle of our citizens which means helping with road construction, light posts, electricity and technology.

What we decided on:

• To distribute the discretionary spending I would find ways that ensure the public is happy but it also uses the money to its maximum potential. First of all, spend a portion of it about ⅕ or ⅖ on security this way adding to the security the country already has we can help ensure that there will be no sudden attack on our country and that we can provide security to our citizens. The rest of the discretionary spending will be used on our homeland to benefit our citizens. The government will fix roads, place street lights, build parks as well as any other item that benefits the people of the United States.

Budget Proposal – Honors

Glossary of budgetary terms:

• Appendix: contains detailed information on the various appropriations and funds that constitute the budget and is designed primarily for the use of the Appropriations Committees.
• Analytical Perspective: contains analyses that are designed to highlight specified subject areas or provide other significant presentations of budget data that place the budget in perspective.
• Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2011: contains the Budget Message of the President, information on the President’s priorities, budget overviews organized by agency, and summary tables.
• Historical Tables, Budget of the United States Government:  provides data on budget receipts, outlays, surpluses or deficits, Federal debt, and Federal employment over an extended time period, generally from 1940 or earlier to 2011 or 2015.
• Office of Management and Budget: The group of individuals that in unison with the President conduct research and create the yearly budget.
• LIBOR: a measure of liquidity in the banking system
• GDP: The Gross Domestic Product, meaning the total amount of money produced in a country.

 

The Department of Defense.

By: Katherine Szetu, Ibis Almada, John Mark Shorack, and Paul Ji.

 

This project was done on a Prezi. Click HERE to see the presentation.

The Watergate Scandal Analysis.

By: Katherine Szetu, John Mark Shorack, Ibis Almada, and Paul Ji.

 

Information about the Watergate Scandal:
-Location:

• Watergate Hotel in Washington D.C.

-Summary of the events that happened on June 17, 1972:

• Watergate Burglars broke into the Democratic Party’s National Committee offices on June 17, 1972.  They had been caught by a security guard while attempting to wiretap phones and steal secret documents. President  Nixon gave a speech in which he swore that his White House staff was not involved in the break-in. Most voters believed him, and in November the president was reelected in a landslide. However, it was later found out that he had lied, since he arranged to provide hundreds of thousands of dollars in “hush money” to the burglars.

-Main players in the Watergate scandal, and their roles:

• Bernard L. Barker – a realtor from Miami, Florida. Former Central Intelligence Agency operative. Barker was said to have been involved in the Bay of Pigs incident in 1962.
• Virgilio R. Gonzales – a locksmith from Miami, Florida. Gonzalez was a refugee from Cuba, following Castro’s takeover.
• James W. McCord – a security co-ordinator for the Republican National Committee and the Committee for the Re-election of the President. McCord was also a former FBI and CIA agent. He was dismissed from his RNC and CREEP positions the day after the break-in.
• Eugenio R. Martinez – worked for Barker’s Miami real estate firm. He had CIA connections and was an anti-Castro Cuban exile.
• Frank A. Sturgis – another associate of Barker from Miami, he also had CIA connections and involvement in anti-Castro activities.
• President Nixon: While historians are not sure whether Nixon knew about the Watergate espionage operation before it happened, he took steps to cover it up afterwards, raising “hush money” for the burglars, trying to stop the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) from investigating the crime, destroying evidence and firing uncooperative staff members

-Why the President had recording devices installed in his office:

• It was Richard M. Nixon’s predecessor in the White House, Lyndon Baines Johnson, who first suggested to Nixon that he install a secret taping system. The idea, he told Nixon, would be to create a historical record that would supplement whatever written diary Nixon used.

-Some of the individuals President Nixon taped:

• The smoking gun tape: This was one of the tapes released by Nixon on order of the Supreme Court. It revealed that Nixon had ordered a cover-up of the Watergate break-in just six days after the burglary,which caused Nixon’s congressional support to melt away and triggered.
• Alexander Butterfield’s reveals existence of : video and audio of Alexander Butterfield’s appearance before the Senate Watergate Committee. Butterfield confirmed the existence of an Oval Office taping system in the White House. The hunt for the tapes that ultimately precipitated Nixon’s resignation began from this moment.

-Were these people aware that they were being taped?

• No, only the secret service and some close friends of the president.

-Members of the “Plumbers” :

• Frank Sturgis, Bernard Baker, Eugenio Martinez, Virgilio Gonzalez, James McCord, Gordon Liddy, McCord, and Howard Hunt.

-Why they were called the Plumbers:

• They were called like that because their original mission was to prevent information from leaking.

-The Plumbers job, for whom they worked, and two deed they were stood accused of perpetrating:

• The ‘Plumbers’ were a special investigation unit created by president Nixon. These men broke into the Watergate apartment and office complex on June 17, 1972. They raid the Democratic Party offices in the complex in order to obtain secret documents pertaining to the presidential election.

 

Reflection Questions:

-Why would a President authorize illegal activities?

• If we were to answer this question taking into consideration that the president has the best interest at heart, he may authorize illegal activities in order to fulfill his duties and to protect the nation. Sometimes, certain things have to be done in order to do so, but there might not be a legal way to do it.

-Does a President have the constitutional authority to break the law?

• The President does not have the constitutional authority to break the law.

-Is there ever a time in which the President is justified in breaking the law or in authorizing others to break the law? Provide examples and explain your thinking.

• The only time that I would consider the President justified in breaking the law was if he was trying to accomplish a deed that would ㅇe impossible without authorizing an illegal act. Although not fully justified, his actions at least have a reason for being carried out. An example of such actions would be when President Bush used questionable interrogation tactics to extract information from captured terrorists in order to accomplish a bigger scheme.

-Were the President to ask you to break the law, would you do it? Explain your answer and provide examples.

• It would really have to depend on the situation. If I believe that he does not have the interest of the nation at heart, then I would not break the law for him. However, if the reason behind me breaking the law would be justifiable in my standard, I would gratefully take one for the team. For example, if the President asked me to kill one of his rivals, I would obviously not do it because I know that he is doing it for all the wrong reasons. However, if the President asked me to steal a document from an organization that was posing a threat to the rest of the nation, I would do it.

-Should limits be placed on Presidential power? If so, what should such limitations be?

• I believe he already has enough limits put on his powers. Although he is granted certainly influential powers, there are so many informal limitations that do not allow him to be the most effective as he can be, and also impede him from being able to make the necessary changes that he needs to be able to make.

 

Information about Richard Nixon:
-Who is this person?

• Richard Milhous Nixon, President of the United States of America during the watergate scandal. However, he passed away in 1994.

-What was his role in the Watergate scandal?

• He was President of the USA during the scandal but later resigned due to impeachment threat.

-What happened to this person as a result of the Watergate scandal?

• Richard Nixon, at this time President, resigned.

-Do you think this person would feel the President overstepped his authority? Use the person’s biography, beliefs, actions during Watergate, and quotes to help you to answer this question.

• Nixon, was the President at this time. There are two key factors that would affect his point of view on this question. The fact that he resigned and the fact that he actually followed through with the tapping. Considering he ordered the tapping and breaking into the Watergate hotel, however tried to keep it secret and not be known projects the notion that he did think it was overstepping his boundaries and due to this did not mention it. Likewise, Nixon also resigned before his impeachment trial. This gives the understand that he had no chance of winning and did not want the shame of being impeached. Both these facts express how Nixon did believe he overstepped his Presidential authority.

 

Interview with Richard Nixon:
-Were you involved in perpetrating illegal activities? If so, what motivated you to engage in illegal behavior?

• Yes, I just was intrigued to know what my opponents were doing, what they were planning and what they wanted to do. I was lead by power, thinking I could do as I saw fit, but it did not work that way.

-If you had the chance to go back in time, would you do it all again-get involved in illegal activities?

• No, everything will be different. I will not let my curiosity and pride lead me and make me do such terrible things. “I have let American people down, and I have to cary the burden with me the rest of my life. My political life is over. I will never yet and ever again have the opportunity to serve in any official capacity.” I have lost everything do to this action, It will always be in my conscience.
• quote from: April 15, 1977: Nixon Will Never Serve the Public Again, He Tells Interviewer

-What advice would you give the future Plumbers?

• Do not conspire with the president; he is a human and he also can commit mistakes, do not let him get his way. Many things can go wrong if you risk that much; your job, political status, and pride could all go down. Do your job correctly and do not let information leak, and do not go out searching for information that is leaking, concentrate on your information staying safe.
• If you do get caught, lying and then trying to cover all of it is worthless, time consuming and stressful. Truth will always comes out, whether you like it or not, sooner or later it will happen. Tell the truth, you may be forgiven

-Do you think the President should have the power to break the law, or the power to direct others to break the law?

• Yes, when it comes to moments when you want to do something for your party, your people and the law impedes you from doing so, totally! Laws were made so that people would stay in line, but they it does not have to include the president. As president I should have the power to break the law or have others break the law for me, because it is me in charge, and I know best. If the country is in an extreme situation, there is not time to follow the law, you act as it is needed, no time to review if it is legal or not.

-What do you think the limits should be on the President’s powers?

• I think the president should be able to do anything he or she sees fit, in order to maintain a safe and well running country. Therefore the limits will vary accordingly. Some of the mayor limits should be the ways he negotiates with other countries, not having the authority to say and do as he pleases but have to consult first. He/she should not get involved in people’s personal lives; and the extent to which they can be involved in state issues.

The Electoral System

By: John Mark Shorack, Ibis Almada, Katherine Szetu, and Paul Ji.

 

How the electoral process works:

The selection procedure takes place on a state-by-state basis with registered party supporters voting for candidates in a series of elections, known as primaries or caucuses, held earlier in the year. This result will determine the number of delegates each state will send to the party convention. In the primaries, every supporter gets a vote while in caucuses, groups of registered local party members meet to agree on a candidate, and then cast a vote as a group.

By June, when the last primaries are held, both parties will have selected most of their delegates for their respective conventions. At their national conventions, each party decides on their presidential candidate. Also at the conventions, each party nominates a list of supporters to serve as electors in each state. The number of electors per state is determined by population size.

When the citizens cast their votes, it doesn’t directly count towards an individual candidate. Instead, their vote goes towards a group of people called “electors,” and these people vote as a group for their state’s preferred candidate in December.

Why certain individuals choose to become presidential candidates:

The reason to become President certainly depends on the candidate and their point of view. However, many candidates have the same general reasons. Most want to become President’s because it gives them power, or they want to be remembered.

Power, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, is the possession of authority or control. As President an individual will have a lot of work, but also authority. They are Commander in Chief, they are Chief of Party, and even Chief Legislator. The amount of power the President has caused many individuals to become candidates.

Many individuals as well, want to be remembered. This inspires them to become a public figure, such as the President, and be remembered pretty much forever. They will go into History books, people minds and biographies. The Presidency allows the citizens spirit to continue in the people and this drives many candidates.

Presidential candidates work really hard and are inspired to become Presidents most the time because it gives them power, and they will be remembered in their country for years to come.

 

What factors limit who can or will become a candidate?:

There are several factors that limit candidacy today. Candidacy is really important since from these candidates the citizens choose their rulers.

One of them is the economic resources that a party, group or an individual has. In today’s world money is a priority especially in the political world, since that money would be use for electoral campaigns, propaganda, and many other things. In addition to money, another factor that affects the candidacy process is the position the person has in the government and the amount of time he/she has been there. The seniority privilege can be consider an example of how important this is. The years of experience are a really influential factor that limits who can become a candidate. Both the citizens and the government consider experience an important characteristic in a candidate because they are more knowledgeable about governmental processes, efficiency and know what to do in certain situations.

 

How the caucus and primary system now results in the selection of a party nominee:

The caucus and primary system today are put by the government to help the states select their candidates for national convention. In primaries the voters choose some or all of the state party delegates for their party’s national convention and express their preference between different contenders for their party’s presidential nomination. The dates for primaries are very crazy, because every state wants early dates, hence the schedules become heavy in those days were various states are having their primaries. Name, recognition, and money are also key factors for primaries, these determine if a candidate is going to be likable.

Caucuses are held on the states that do not hold presidential primaries. These are closed meetings of members of a political party, who will get together to choose the delegates for national convention.

For our project, we had to research some of the presidential candidates from the 2008 Presidential Election.

Barack Obama:

• http://www.barack-obama-bio.com/barack-obama-background.php
• http://www.biography.com/people/barack-obama-12782369?page=4

*General background information:

• Barack Obama was born on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Hawaii. He was born of mixed ethnic parentage – American mother and a Kenyan father. He goes on to study law at Harvard Law School, and that is where he met Michelle Robinson, his future-wife-to-be. After he had graduated, he became a Senator of the state of Illinois in 1996. During these years, Obama worked with both Democrats and Republicans to draft legislation on ethics and health care. In the year 2000, he ran for the seat in the House, but did not win. He regained the Senate for the state of Illinois back in 2004. In February of 2007, Obama announced that he was going to run for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination. He goes on to beat Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary, and goes on to beat John McCain in the national presidential election to become the first-ever African American President in the history of the United States of America.

*Point of view on major issues:

• Obama supports access to abortion. Health care law requires contraceptives to be available to women.
• Obama is against the wars happening in the Middle East. He ended the war in Iraq, and plans to end the one in Afghanistan.
• United State will no longer use harsh interrogation techniques.
• He is an advocate for women’s rights.
• He has not pushed for stricter gun laws as president.
• He approves of gay marriage.
• He believes the working families should get a tax break, while rich people should continue paying the money they should.
• Universal health care.

*Special qualities or qualifications:

• He is the first African American President.
• He was previously a Senator of Illinois.
• He was raised in a hard environment, and by a single mother.

 

 Hillary Clinton:

*General background information:

• Hillary Clinton was born on October 26, 1947, in Chicago, Illinois. She married Bill Clinton in 1975. Later on she served as first lady from 1993 to 2001, and then as a U.S. senator from 2001 to 2009 (New York). In early 2007, Clinton announced her plans to run for the presidency. However, when she realized that Obama held the majority of the delegates vote she conceded her nomination. Yet Obama named her his Secretary of State, after winning the presidential elections. As Secretary of State, Clinton became the first First Lady to serve in a president’s cabinet.

*Point of view on major issues:

• Women rights
• Human rights
• Supports legal and safe abortion
• In favor of clean and renewable energy
• Free Trade
• Supports Immigrants
• Pro-gun control
• In favor of health care bill
• Supports LGBT

*Special qualities or qualifications:

• Promoted the use of social media to convey the country’s positions.
• First First Lady to serve in a president´s cabinet

John McCain:

• http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=AboutSenatorMcCain.Biography
• http://www.biography.com/people/john-mccain-9542249?page=1

*General background information:

• July 1967, he survived the first of many of his near death situations. While he was trying to take off on a bombing mission on the Vietnam war; A missile accidentally fired from a near plane, and hit his fuel tank. After this incident he had the option to go home and take a break, but he decided to keep his duty. On October of that same year, his plane was shot down during a bombing on Hanoi, North Vietnam. This caused him to eject and due to that he broke both arms and his leg. He was kept prisoner in the “Hanoi Hilton” by the North Vietnamese; where he was deprived form medical treatment and beaten. Five and a half years later he was able to return home, where he decided to continue his serving to the country and regain his naval flight position. He later retired form the Navy in 1981. He left with honors including, the Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart, and the Distinguished Flying Cross. In 2000, He run against George W. bush for presidential elections. That same year McCain was diagnosed with skin cancer; he had surgery and all cancerous tissue was removed.

*Point of view on major issues:

• Values duty
• Honor and service of country
• Fight for reforming Washington, eliminating wasteful government spending,
• Strengthening our nation’s armed forces.
• Liberal views

*Special qualities or qualifications:

• Liberal views
• Representative of Arizona re-elected thrice
• Retired from Navi with Honors
• Fought for His country

Mitt Romney:

• http://2012.republican-candidates.org/Romney/Biography.php
• http://www.biography.com/people/mitt-romney-241055

*General background information:

• Mitt Romney, a Presidential candidate in 2008 and 2012, was born in Detroit, Michigan. His parents were Lenore LaFount Romney, and an ex-governor of Michigan George W. Romney. In his career as a professional he founded Bain Capital, and insurance company, was Chairman of the Republican Governors Association, and Governor of Massachusetts between 2003-2007. He is a professed Mormon. In terms of education, he got his undergraduate at Brigham Young University, and later his Masters and Law degree in Harvard.

*Point of view on major issues:

• Pro-Life.
• Anti-Abortion
• In favor of Capital Punishment
• Hardline Approach towards China.
• Education is the center of the American Dream

*Special qualities or qualifications:

• Clear cut values
• Previous Governor of a State
• Experience in elections (Lost against McCain in 2008 and  for the Senate)
• Businessman, knows about money.
• Cares about his family.

 

 

As a group, we had to come up with some good qualifications or qualities of a good Presidential Candidate.

• Charismatic / Inspiring.
• Can connect with the people.
• Influential.
• Able to convince people.
• Honest.
• Experienced.
• Trustworthy.
• Clear values / Strong beliefs.
• Responsible.
• Organized.
• Open minded.
• Politically astute.

 

We also had to make a list of pros and cons of the current electoral system.

Pros:

• It has a good filter so that not anyone can become a candidate.
• All the conventions, meetings, and campaigning help inform the public of the candidates.
• It is clear and organized, since there is already a set procedure for each things.
• It requires the candidates to consider a wide range of national interests, as well as regions.
• It has been used in the U.S. for a long time, so most of the people feel comfortable and informed about the whole process.
• It brings many powerful and important figures in American politics together.
• It evens out the difference in population and size of its states.
• The decision is not only on big states because small states can also create a difference.

Cons:

• The popular vote does not have the final decision over the election of the President.
• The two-party system does not leave much room for a third candidate that could rise up against them
• It can prevent the winner of popular vote from being elected.
• Voters in less populous states have an unfair advantage since they have more electoral votes per person than larger states.
• The bipartisan domination of the government prevents many potential to-be presidential candidates to not even be considered for the seat.
• People will do just about anything to get the major party nomination, even if that meant lying.
• It is not able to completely show national will since there is no place for more specific minority parties.

 

To conclude this whole project, we had to answer the question, “Does the current electoral process result in the best candidates for President?”

The current electoral process has been the way in which the presidential candidates have been selected ever since the Framers established such a system. There were obvious benefits for why the Framers constructed such a system because it filtered the candidates who were full of potential from the ones that were merely trying to do it for no good reason. Also, having such an electoral system allows for a clear and organized elections, primaries, conventions, and caucuses on many different governmental levels. However, it has come to our attention that this system of selecting our presidential candidates do not bring out the best possible pool of people to be considered for the seat.

To begin with, the United States of America is one of the best archetypes of democracy, and “democracy” is an idea, a belief, that every single person gets a chance, and that the people have the power. However, with the way the system is constructed, we believe that the very definition and the beliefs that democracy stands for get demoted because of it. The people, who should be the ones with power, are not truly electing and choosing the candidates. The bipartisan system dominates the government to an extent where if a candidate was not nominated from one of the two major parties, they had no actual chance of winning. Also, the informal qualifications which the politicians have put on presidential candidates make it vulnerable to anyone inexperienced, but are famous, to be considered for the nomination, instead of people who are actually influential, charismatic, politically astute, and would make a great president. A prototype of such abuse of prestige and fame for presidency is Ronald Reagan. He was able to become the president by utilizing the fame that he had acquired in his celebrity years. Should a person be considered for the presidency just by the fact that they were known? If that’s the case, there would be countless people that would be eligible for the nomination.

As you can obviously observe, the electoral process is flawed. If the United States, the true epitome of democracy itself, is to elect a President that is worthy of being the leader of a nation with such a title, it must reform right away in order to allow people with true potential to have a shot at becoming the presidential candidate.

Dear Senator (Letter Concerning the Congress Reformation).

By: John Mark Shorack, Katherine Szetu, Ibis Almada, and Paul Ji.

The Law Making Process:

http://prezi.com/yilkolwtusp7/passing-a-law-in-congress/?kw=view-yilkolwtusp7&rc=ref-838012

Sources of information:

http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/legprocessflowchart.pdf
http://www.house.gov/content/learn/legislative_process/
http://www.slideshare.net/bmtoth/the-lawmaking-process

 

Dear Senator,

We believe that Congress has been doing a marvelous job considering all the discrepancies it had to overcome in order to make the laws that exist right now. However, we, as your constituents, do not feel that you are reaching your maximum potential due to you and your party’s selfish motives. When we voted for you, senator, we wanted a representative in Congress who would accurately fight for our beliefs instead of that of your political party. Can’t you see that this division in Congress is causing retardation in the lawmaking process?
That is why we believe that the Congress can undergo a major reformation. Lee Hamilton once stated that, “Extensive debate is written into the very structure of our congressional system… Our Founders understood the importance of conflict in the system, both as a way for all views to be represented, and as a process for building common ground among them.” We agree that all views and perspectives must be represented in the Congress, but the way in which the current legislative branch handle business is getting us nowhere.
Politicians are using cheap techniques like filibusters and other shady tactics to impede or put an end to certain bills merely because they do not have their opinions in it. The reason we elect officials in the first place is because it would take forever to make decisions if we had an election for every single reasonable bill that is to be passed. However, looking at the rate in which the Congress is making decisions, we believe that actually holding nation-wide elections would be a faster way to get things done. Please, if you do not want to lose your jobs, suck it up and deal with the differences that you might have with the opposing party and make some progress!
I agree with what Norman Ornstein said when he said that the politicians in the House and Senate need to see each other “as human beings and not as the enemy.” You guys really need to realize that everyone present at the Congress is there for the same reason: the benefit and advancement of the constituents that they are representing. The true mindset must be one of understanding that the other is also human and seeking solution; a compromise. The primary situation in the Congress is that no one wishes to compromise.
Our biggest recommendation for the Congress is to get over the differences that might exist within it, forget about the political parties, and simply work together to promote the welfare and high caliber life that the constituents deserve!

Sincerely,
Very Annoyed Constituents.

Interest Groups As We Know

By: John Mark Shorack, Katherine Szetu, Ibis Almada, and Paul Ji

NAACP
http://www.naacp.org/pages/our-mission
http://www.naacp.org/pages/naacp-history
http://www.naacp.org/pages/naacp-legal-history
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/NAACP.htm

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, NAACP, was founded in 1909 by a group of white liberal in response to the “ horrific practice of lynching…” Their goal at that time was to secure the rights stated in Amendments 13th,14th and 15th of the constitution for all people. The NAACP is the nation’s oldest civil rights organization, whose principal objective is to ensure political, educational, economic and social equality of minorities throughout the United States. “The vision of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is to ensure a society in which all individuals have equal rights without discrimination based on race.” Throughout the years this organization has experienced a significant growth in membership.

One of the ways the NAACP started to promote equality and eliminate racial prejudice was through ‘The Crisis’ magazine an official publication of the NAACP. Is one of the oldest black newspapers in America, which stills continues to promote its original mission. This organization has had many court battles and victories all throughout the country. During the civil rights era the NAACP held one of the most renown cases in the history of segregation in 1954, Brown v. Board of Education. It was headed by the special counsel T. Marshall, and it outlawed segregation in public schools.It was a slow and long process followed by protest and terrorist towards people supporting integration.

The organization provided convincing evidence about the level of inequality among white and black students, and consequently after fighting for so many years against school segregation, they were able to win the court case and previously segregated school accepted African American children. However, black students experience violent acts and many were still denied many rights, such as voting. The NAACP possessed great leaders such as Martin Luther King Jr., Sammy Davis jr and Jackie Robinson, who help throughout the whole Civil Rights Movement.

American Medical Association
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/about-ama/our-mission.page
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/about-ama/our-history.page
http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/organizations/a/american_medical_association/index.html

The American Medical Association was founded in 1847 by Nathan Smith Davis in order to promote scientific advancement, improve public health, and invest in the doctor and patient relationship.  With about 250,000 members, the AMA is one of America’s largest and most powerful physician organization.  Although not involved with politics very much, the AMA has more influence than any other group in health care industry.  Their main focus, as the nation’s health care system continues to evolve, is to dedicate their attention to ensuring sustainable physician practices that result in better health outcomes for patients.  They invest most of their time in improving health outcomes, accelerating change in medical education, and enhancing physician satisfaction and practice sustainability by shaping delivery and payment models. They believe that, “Together, we can shape a better, healthier future – not just for patients and physicians, but for the country as a whole.”

One of the ways in which the American Medical Association tried to change a certain policy was way back in 1945 when President Harry Truman tried to implement a national healthcare program.  Just like Franklin D. Roosevelt 7 years before him, he wanted to insure that all communities, regardless of their size or income level, had access to doctors and hospitals.  However, the American Medical Association launched a spirited attack against the bill, capitalizing on fears of Communism in the public mind.  The AMA characterized the bill as socialized medicine and called the Truman White House staffers followers of the Moscow party line.  The AMA argued that, “the medical profession and the sick whom they treat will be directly under political control and doctors in America will become clock watchers and slaves to the system.”  When the Republicans took control of the Congress in 1946, they had no intention of passing the national health insurance and the whole fiasco between the Truman administration and the AMA was over.

Amnesty International USA

http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/cases/azerbaijan-jabbar-savalan
http://blog.amnestyusa.org/iar/jabbar-savalan-freed/

The Amnesty International is an interest group that works “to protect people wherever justice, freedom, truth and dignity are denied.” They have more than 3 million members, and reach their goals by teaching the public, exposing abuse cases and creating a safer world.

One case Amnesty International worked on was from Jabbar Savalan.  He was arrested in Azerbaijan after organizing a protest through Facebook. Police came and took him without reading to him his rights or allowing him to see a lawyer. Amnesty International visited his family, and talked to many of Jabbar’s friends who claimed he did not do drugs. They also sent 38,000 signatures to the Azerbaijani authorities in New York petitioning for his freedom, and included him in their “Write for Rights Global Write-a-thon.” Jabbar Savalan was finally released after almost 11 months in prison.

NRLC (National Right-to-Life Committee)

http://www.nrlc.org/

http://www.enotes.com/national-right-life-committee-reference/national-right-life-committee-nrlc

 

The National Right-to-Life Committee, “promotes respect for the worth and dignity of all human life, particularly the life of the unborn child from the moment of conception.” They have their offices in Washington DC; they have 1 million members, and their president is Wanda Franz.

The NRLC was funded on January of 973 after the U.S Supreme Court decided to change the restriction of abortion from all 50 states and turn them into a national policy that allowed for any women to get an abortion.

The National Right-to-Life Committee reaches its goal by getting involved in issues that include infanticide, abortion, assisted suicide and euthanasia. They are also involved with the concern of free speech, so that they can have special interest group access to congressional record. They have annuals conferences in which the ones around the country come together and discuss about their activities and ideas on how to promote the right-to-life in each state. These people also have programs that provide information of their pro-life cause.

The NRLC has had many attempts to pass a law that bans the partial-birth abortion; which is performed around the 20th to 24th week of pregnancy and consists of partially delivering the baby, while various medical procedures are happening, resulting in the baby being born dead. In their 4th attempt to ban the law in 1997, the NRLC took evidence from an article in the New York Times where pro-choice activist, Ron Fitzsimmons, declared that partial-birth abortions were executed a lot more on healthy moms, with healthy babies. The senate in 1997 passed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, but president Clinton vetoed it. They tried to turn his veto down, but were two votes short.

Media and Public Opinion of a Democracy.

By: John Mark Shorack, Katherine Szetu, Ibis Almada, and Paul Ji

 

 

Ever since the newspaper started to be printed, the mass media has been a major influence in forming the public opinion and supporting it in a democratic government.  Today, we are going to look at how specific types of mass media affect political decisions made by people in a local and national level.

• Local Newspaper News

Kane County Chronicle
http://www.kcchronicle.com/
The Kane County Chronicle is a newspaper owned by Shaw media one of the only family owned publishing companies. It reports news to approximately 520,271 citizens. The chronicle provides local, regional, national and international news for the whole county. It is accurate, because it means to bring the best coverage possible to the county. It does have an explicit type of bias. It provides a neutral news coverage. It definitely shapes the public’s opinion. It provides the county with news that shapes the way they view elections, presidents, and even other countries or organizations. It plays a big role in the counties news coverage.

Elburn Herald:
http://elburnherald.com/

The Elburn Herald is a small newspaper from Elburn, Illinois. It covers a population of about 5,602 citizens. The purpose of the Elburn Herald is to provide news; they cover community programs, and local news. The newspaper does not provide any national news. It is slightly objective. The Elburn Herald provides the news in a way that the village wants to hear. It may not always give a neutral perspective, because it needs the citizens of Elburn to buy their newspapers. Although it is slightly biased, they reporting is accurate. This newspaper shapes public opinion by providing news and information to the village of Elburn. But at the same time it does not help the village broaden its perspective because it does not show them news stories from new perspectives. The Elburn Herald provides Elburn with news but does not help them understand the other side to stories seen daily on television.

Both local newspapers
The Kane County Chronicle and the Elburn Herald are two local newspapers that greatly shape the public opinion in Illinois. It provides the Elburn, and Kane County with the news that shapes their beliefs. Apart from Television and Radio, these two newspapers are their source of information. Depending on how they talk about any situation, it changes how citizens in their location react towards it.

• National Television

ABC-News
http://abcnews.go.com/
ABC-News is a national cables news for and from the United States. It provides its viewers with the national and international news everyday. The news reporter also has a webpage that contains health, political, world, and money daily news reports. The news channel, and webpage have both been created to report the latest news, neither of them contain any opinion articles. ABC-News does not show any support to any particular political party, it shows to be a neutral news informant, abstaining themselves from adding any personal, or bias looking opinion. Reports from this channel and webpage are both accurate, noting that other sites have the same information, moreover, they also transmit live news situations. ABC- News has influenced public opinion with the information that they report to people, these possibly changing, or affecting what people believe about a certain topic.

CNN
http://edition.cnn.com/
CNN is a national and international cable news channel, originally from the United States; one of the news channel’s slogan is “The Best Political Team on Television”. The essential purpose of the channel is to report the latest breaking news, which, sometimes, also include the opinion of the hosts sharing them. The television channel is accurate with it’s reports and news, having educated and expert reporters and journalists. The news that their site provides, does contain some bias, when it comes to politics; they tend to show more agreement, and support towards the democratic party. CNN has a great influence on public opinion, this is due to the fact that people are always watching it, and subconsciously  gathering and considering what they hear on television.

Both National News
CNN and ABC-News are two different, yet very similar news cable channels that provide, and update the country of the United States with every kind of news. They both shape public opinion by the information they share and give to their viewers, being these two, the main news informants. Both of the news sources try to keep their bias and opinion away from their reports, but not being an easy task, some do better than others.

• Regional/Local television

WttW-
http://www.wttw.com/

Window to the World (WttW) is a local television channel in Chicago whose mission is to inform and encourage audiences to explore the knowledge of science, humanity, art and public affairs. it offers different perspectives on news which is an intend to be none bias. Not only does it inform but it also teaches since it offers classroom-oriented instruction programming as well as televise college courses such as world history and American History. In addition to education, WttW uses this medium to stimulate interest in the arts such as dance, music and drama. This specific local television focuses in educating the citizens of Chicago and its viewers grow every day. This channel influences the way people might think and act since its teaching people of all ages, from kids to adults about different subjects. People who watch a channel such as this one are constantly receiving information that is helpful for life not only for the moment, unlike other television channels.

WKYC-

http://cleveland.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=cleveland&cdn=citiestowns&tm=27&f=20&su=p1042.5.175.ip_p284.13.342.ip_p554.23.342.ip_&tt=2&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http%3A//www.wkyc.com/

WKYC is a local television station in the state of Ohio, from the United States. Its main purpose is to report events about the region or those that are related to the state; however, because is a very complete channel, it offers breaking news from around the country as well even though its main focus is Ohio. The information can be very accurate and eye catching some of the topics they talk about are weather, sports and politics. In addition since this station is from Cleveland the majority of the news are regarding events from that specific region. This local television is very influential on Ohio’s people specially those who live in Cleveland, but not that much on other citizens throughout the country due to the fact that is only a local program. However, is out of all the local television channels WKYC is one of the biggest and most complete so people get the information from that sources which influences them the most, in comparison to the smaller programs.

Both Local television programs:
The WttW and WKYC are totally different local television programs with different goals and types of information. The WttW focus is specific to inform people about different subjects related to education and learning, while the WKYC reports about local events, and news. However, both programs are consider very influential on people of their respective region. It all depends on the audience they are targeting and how they are giving the information to their local citizens. Most importantly, they are very reliable sources which try to keep any type of bias and prejudice from being transmitted to the audience.

In conclusion, it is pivotal for the public to understand that the mass media is not only to be used to communicate a message to them, but that they exist so that they can communicate back to the people who are representing them.  In a democracy, the public opinion and the media should be where the politicians get their information and opinions.  People should not be so ignorant to not utilize the mass media that is easily accessible to them, and make sure they contribute to their government by being more politically engaged through them.

Improving the Electoral Process.

By: Paul Ji, John Mark Shorack, Ibis Almada, and Katherine Szetu.

 

 

Our group did an internet research on how to improve the electoral process of the United States.  In order to do so, we used the election results and other online information to study the 2000 and 2008 presidential elections to come to certain conclusion.

 

The 2000 Presidential Election Analysis:

Selection process: What are the strengths and weaknesses of the process? Does it produce the best pool of presidential candidates?

The candidates that ran on the ballot were: George W. Bush for the Republicans, Albert Gore Jr. for the Democratic Party, Ralph Nader for the Green Party, Patrick Buchanan for the Reformist and Harry Browne for the Libertarian. The selection process was done by each party’s primaries. They then sent out their most qualified candidate to debate with the other, and run for office. The strengths of this system is that each party sends only one candidate so it is not a very long list, and that the people still have a wide variety of candidates that can be chose from. On the other hand, its weaknesses are that some people might not vote because of the specific candidates on the ballot, and the candidates are being grouped by a party which gives the opportunity for voters to not even have researched.

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=2000

Party primaries: How effective are primaries in selecting the most qualified nominee?

According to the US Election Atlas in 2000 the Republican party had six nominees in the primary voting and Democratic Party had three nominees. At the primaries the main idea is to promote the candidate. The party does speeches, activities and rallies to get full of energy for the coming elections. For the Democratic Party, President Bill Clinton spoke to the crowd and filled them with anticipation for the elections. During the primary there is a wide range of nominees to choose from, and at the end of the primary the nation votes for the best one. The primaries are pretty effective at picking the most qualified nominee, because it allows the people to choose the best candidate out of all the nominees. The most qualified nominee will be backed by most citizens and then lead the party to the general election by uniting them under his race for office to become an even stronger party.

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?f=0&year=2000&elect=2
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?f=0&year=2000&elect=1

Vice presidential selection: Who should be chosen?

The vice presidential selection is very complex. A vice president might be chosen for several reasons: First of all, because it will unite more the political party; second, because the person is from an important state or geographic location; and third, because the nomination might benefit the party’s cause. Even though many people undermine the vice presidents authority many vice presidents later run for the Presidents office and have a good chance of winning. The running mate that should be chosen by the party is one that units the party, helps them gain some swing states, and will be a good Presidential candidate in the future.

http://www.fandm.edu/politics/2000-vice-presidential-selection

Electoral College: How does it affect the campaign and the outcome?

The campaigning of the party’s focus directly on the electoral college votes. The party’s discover the swing states and pour the most money into them. For example, California’s tendency is to vote Democratic. For this reason, the Democratic Party will not advertise as much in California because they expect to win, instead they will advertise a lot in Florida where there is a possibility to lose and the electoral votes are needed. In the 2000 elections, the electoral college voted a majority for George Bush, contrary to the popular vote. This can seem contradictory, but the American system works in a way that gives each state a different value, and thus the candidates work on winning the most important states, not the actual popular vote.

http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2000/elecpop.htm

 

Campaign financing: What role does it play in the election?

The presidential campaign financing of 2000, had a total contribution of $528.9 million, and spend of $343.1 million. As one of the biggest candidates, the Republican running, Governor G.W Bush said no to matching funds and recollected more than $90 million only on individual contributions, setting a record for history, due to the great amount of money he was able to recollect from only the people. The FEC also reported that 108 senate candidates rose $327.2 million for their campaign. Most of the money raised by the mayor parties, the democrats and republicans, was used on television ads; together they spent $79.9 million. President Bush even spent $10.8 million, into California thinking he could win it, yet he lost, when candidate Al Gore had not spend a single cent on ads for California. Many donations also came from companies and famous people, though candidates tend to avoid bragging about it because they can look bad, or corrupted. The financing from the 2000 campaign came from great donations from the people and were mainly used to create media publicity.

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/presfin04.html
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/totals.php?cycle=2008

 

The media: Do they provide fair coverage of the candidates?

Media was the most powerful source of advertising that the candidates used in the elections of 2000. The parties actually spend more money on ads than they did on their actual candidate; the republican committee together with the Democratic committee spent $79.9 million on television ads. The independent groups decided to help the mayor parties and spent $14 million in ads for candidate Al Gore, and $2.1 million on ads for the Republican, George Bush. On election night media excellently showed the electoral map and it’s progress, but before Election Day, there was obvious bias from each of the news sites that made each one unfair for the candidate they were not rooting for. Media played a big role on the 2000 presidential election, by being the biggest source of advertisement and keeping up on election night.

http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/2000_presidential_race_first_in_modern_history_where_political_parties_spen/
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/mar2001/med1-m14.shtml

Voter registration and voting procedures: How fair are they in various states?

Voter registration and voter procedure was and is very similar and even the same in the majority of the fifty states. The voters requirements are the same, be at least 18 years old, be a U.S citizen, and a resident of the state you will vote in. In North Dakota the process changes a little, since it is the only state without voter registration. They claim to be such a small place that they just know who should be voting and who should not. Voting was fair all around the country for the 2000 elections, except in Atlanta Florida, where people had issues on their voting process. The problem was due to problems with the voting machines, causing voters to not be able to cast their ballot, because they were not given help with language, due to the fact that they were mistakenly added to the list of delinquents, when they were not. This caused a lawsuit, to reform Florida’s voting process. Voting registration and voting procedure were fair on the 2000 elections for all the country, discounting the state of Florida.

https://vip.sos.nd.gov/pdfs/Portals/votereg.pdf
http://elect.ky.gov/voterinfo/Pages/voterinformationguide.aspx
http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/eleifv/howreg.htm
http://www.aclufl.org/issues/voting_rights/election_reform.cfm

The 2000 Presidential Election Analysis:

Selection process: What are the strengths and weaknesses of the process? Does it produce the best pool of presidential candidates?
The selection process, also known as preselection, is to choose in advance usually on the basis of a particular criterion.  In the case of the presidential election, it is the process by which a candidate is selected to contest an election for political office.  The United States has implemented the system in which each political party has their own primaries and conventions in order to pick their nominee.  Once the nominee for the party has been selected, they compete with the nominees of the other political parties for the presidential office.  The strength of this process is that there would not be so many politicians to vote on when the election occurs, but the problem is that the current system that is implemented in the United States is somewhat unfair for the minor parties.  Even though they put a nominee at the head, they cannot compete with the Democratic nominee or the Republican one.  People argue that it is fair in that each party has the same chance as anybody else, but that is not true.  If it were to be fair and produce the best pool of presidential candidates, all of the nominees should have the same chances and opportunities to compete each other on a national level.

Party primaries: How effective are primaries in selecting the most qualified nominee?
The party primaries are elections held within the party to choose their nominee.  Since the United States is a bipartisan political system, the primaries that are important are the Democratic and Republican primary.  In the 2008 Republican primary, John McCain won with ease, winning over about 1,575 delegates within the Republican party, and became the nominee.  However, the Democratic primary was a little bit more complicated due to the close race between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.  Although Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, Obama won the nomination with a surprising number of delegates of 2,285 while Clinton had 1,973.  As shown in the Democratic primary, and even in the 2004 presidential election itself, the way the primaries are set is somewhat unfair and not very democratic.  The fact that Obama got the nomination over Clinton despite the fact that he did not have the popular vote makes the American public wonder whether or not the process in which Obama became the nominee makes him the most qualified candidate.

Vice presidential selection: Who should be chosen?
The selection of the vice president is somewhat similar to that of the party nominee.  However, the difference is that the vice presidents are chosen to balance the ticketing and support of the presidential candidate.  The person that becomes the vice president, assisting the president, should be someone who should be qualified to lead and run the country in case something happens to the president.  In the 2008 election, there was a controversy that the vice presidential nomination of the Republican presidential candidate, John McCain, backfired on him because of the attention it got.  Appointing Sarah Palin as the vice presidential brought on much criticism because people were concerned about her becoming a political liability to the office if McCain was to win.  Overall, the person that should be chosen to become the vice president, as demonstrated in the 2008 election, the vice president should be someone who is compatible with the president that does not cause too much controversy, and yet be able to perform as a president if something was to happen to him.

Electoral College: How does it affect the campaign and the outcome?
The Electoral College is the committee that runs the whole electoral process.  In order for the party candidate to win, they must win the electoral votes of the states and get the majority.  Each state, according to its population size gets a different amount of electoral votes.  Due to large states having a lot of electoral votes, things called swing states came into existence.  These are states that are not not completely determined on one political party.  Some people criticize that the process un-democratize the whole electoral process because only the large swing states affect the outcome of the election.  Some people believe that the popular vote is what decides the president, and not the electoral votes.

Campaign financing: What role does it play in the election?
Campaign finance refers to all the funds that are raise and spend for a candidate to be able to target an audience. Therefore, the more money a candidate acquires the more people they can influence. In the 2008 elections Democrats raised a little more than a billion dollars,$1,075 million dollars, almost double of what the Republicans raised,$605 million dollars. For the Democratic party the States of California and New York were the biggest financial contributors, while states like texas, virginia and florida supported the Republicans the most. The republican candidate, John McCain received $84.1 million in public funds for his general campaign and raised another $46.4 million for legal and accounting expenses. On the other hand, the Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama raised $745.7 million in private funds in order to use it in primary and general elections. Both candidates received money from other different sources such as the treasury which gave them $16.8 million. The Democrats and the Republicans used the majority of these funds in conventions and media such as television ads.

The media: Do they provide fair coverage of the candidates?

Media plays an important role in elections which is why it was an indispensable tool used by both political parties throughout the campaigning process. There is no limitations on how to spend this funds since it is an independent activity of each party. Membership organizations spent $18.1 million in communications, while both political groups reported to have spend $27.8 million on electioneering communications, which are broadcasts. The Democrat candidate, Barack Obama spent about $280 million on TV advertising, while McCain spend much less, $134 million. A great part of the money invested on these campaigns came from private sponsors, specially Barack Obama’s ones since he rejected the public funds that were offered to him.

Voter registration and voting procedures: How fair are they in various states?

The voting procedure was almost the same throughout all the fifty states, and continues to be, with some exceptions. Among the requirements every citizen had to follow in every state were: to be 18 years old, be a citizen of the United States, and a resident of that state.Regarding the voting process itself it varies a little, like in the state of Oregon where people get to send their ballot by mail instead of going to the voting center. Procedures like this one makes voting unfair for some people. However, in the majority of the states citizens have to go to their assign voting center in order to vote and follow the same rules.

 

 

Conclusion
From the information gathered, it can be understood that many different elements influence a presidential election. The selection process and the primary system are efficient ways to nominate candidates for the elections. They provide a system where people will pick the best suited candidate on a political party level, and then as a nation, the majority will pick the next president of the United States. The campaigning process is also distributed by the importance of each state, and the need of their electoral votes. Money is an important factor in the campaigns because in order to advertise and promote the candidate in the key states, money is everything.  Unfortunately, due to this financial need, it is hard for all the candidates to get a fair coverage in the media since they cannot raise as much as the two major political parties.  However, it is safe to say that campaign financing and the media are a couple of the key factors in the electoral process.  Although each State has the power to make their own registration requirements and laws, it was surprising to find out that the requirements were similar all around the nation.  Nevertheless, the general opinion was that the presidential election process is not the most adequate way to pick the best person suited for the job.  The Electoral College’s system un-democratizes the whole political system that is implemented in the United States and the bipartisan system where the Democrats and Republicans monopolize the election is another way in which the election process needs to change.  Our best suggestion would be that there should be a balance between the electoral votes and the popular votes because it does not make sense that a person should win the presidency when he got less votes than the other candidate.  Another suggestion, although not seen as a problem, is the campaign financing.  The fact that the two major political parties hold all the coverage of the media and get their “special attention” more than the other parties is the opposite of the definition of democracy.  The other political parties should receive the same amount of money and chance to publicize their candidates and platforms.  To sum it all up, the current presidential electoral process is efficient, but not completely democratic or economical.  In spite of its flaws, we do not see it changing anytime soon because it would not work any other way in the way the government is set up in the United States.

ICS 2012 Exit Polls.

By: Paul Ji, John Mark Shorack, Katherine Szetu, and Ibis Almada.

 

“Your vote is your voice. Use it.” was the advice of Rock the Vote.  In a democracy, people practice their political rights by voting for the right candidates that represent their beliefs.  Just like every individual is unique and different, they utilize their “voice” in different ways.  When it comes to how they decide to vote, many factors affect their decision.

For the 2012 U.S. Presidential Election, our group created a mini survey for a small group of people at our school to take.  Through the results, we analyzed what makes them make the choices they make according to what they believe.

Our survey brought to light how marital status influences the vote someone casts on the ballot. 70% of our survey takers were not married, and 30% were married. The citizens that were not married had the tendency to lean towards the Independent party even though many believed the Republican party to also be promising. The married citizens we surveyed tended to lean towards the Republicans.

From what we can see, the married percentage tended to vote more based on the morale of the party and what they represented in terms of the life of a person. The individuals tended to look from a broader perspective and also see the foreign policies, and ethics part noticing that none of the two parties really are any good.

In our survey, 60% believed the government should be centralized, yet the other 40% thought it should be decentralized. The importance of the independent identity is that it allows people to move away from the two main parties. In our survey the vast majority that believed in centralization also believed in being Independent. They did not agree with Republicans or Democrats. On the other hand, a majority of Republicans believe in a decentralized government.

After analysing the data we concluded that the amount of income doesn’t necessarily affects political preferences. There were both democrats and republicans in each of the categories. There were even supporters of a third party. However, it was notice that the democrats are supported by two extremes, those who have the highest income and those who don’t even have one.

Each person has a totally different personal background; however through the data it can be infer that people that has experience economic problems supports the Republican Party and voted in Mitt Romney’s favor. In addition, people who were thought to follow their beliefs also support the Republicans more than any other party, although is a little contradicting since people who also follow their believes and those of their family support the Democrats as well.

After looking at the religious affiliation category, we found out that it doesn’t influence the political preference in this specific audience. They are all Christians but support different political parties. 40% supports Romney, 20% supports Dr. Jill Stein, 20% supports Obama and 10% supports Gary Johnson (Liberal Party) Since Republicans are consider to be the conservative group, and the Democrats the liberal one, you would have thought that the group would support Romney, however, the poll demonstrated this to be false, even if the majority does supports Romney.

The majority of the survey takers believed that abortion is wrong; however, there were some people who believed that medical abortion should be allowed, and others who supported “Pro-Choice.”  Although most of them did not support abortion, that did not affect who they were voting for president.  Some explained that they support Obama because they believe that the availability of contraception will reduce the number of abortions, and Obamacare makes contraception more accessible.  Some stated that they supported Romney because of his conservative stance on abortion, that it should be illegal.  However, every single Republican did present anti-abortion as one of the main reasons they support the Romney administration.

After looking at the results of the survey, it was indeterminable whether or not gender played a major role in affecting their voting behavior.  Although Mitt Romney’s stance on women’s rights is a controversial topic at the moment, it did not seem to affect the female survey takers’ decision for two of them stated that they would vote for Mitt Romney.  When asked to explain their reasoning, their major concerns were about what the candidate was trying to achieve on a bigger scale.  As for the males, the results did not show any pattern between them due to their gender.

Even out of the small group of survey takers, it was easy to determine that people who support the Republicans are generally conservative while the people who support the Democrats are moderate.  Logically, this makes sense because the Republicans are known for being the conservatives who preserve traditions and the customs, while Democrats are known for being more liberal.

After looking into the ethnicities, we found out that neither of the two major ones had only one party they went for. The caucasian people were divided equally between the democratic, republican and independent party. The latinos divided 50% – 50% between the independent and republican party. The Asian is more propense to the democratic party and lastly the Swedish American moves toward the republican side. Ethnicity is also connected to the age and or education a person might have, which will also affect their way of voting.

After analysing the results we notice that self party identification can be influenced by family identification, but that is not always the case. 4 out of 9 survey takers identified themselves with a different party than the one their families did. Therefore we can deduce that voters behavior on this end might not be so obvious all the times, specially with the younger voters.

Voters who were older than 20 were more propense to vote similarly as their family member do, in fact 80% of them feel more identified with the same party as their family. The other 20% have a different party identification. From this category 50% is leaning more to the Republican side, 30% to the Democrats and other 20% towards independent parties. The teens were divided as well. 50% went for the independent party, 25% for the democrats and 25% for the republicans. The older teens were more propense to go to the independent parties while the younger ones chose the democratic or republican.

Education had a small impact on the way our survey takers would vote. 75% of the people who have a Master’s degree from College lean toward the Republican party and the other 25% towards an Independent party. For the people who have a Bachelor’s degree from college their votes were equally divided for the independent, democratic, and republican party. The high school students divided in 50% for independent parties, 25% for republican and 25% for democrats.

After scrutinizing analysis of the result of the survey, we were able to conclude that even within such a small sample group, there were distinct factors that affected certain people’s decisions.  However, the research would have been better had we had a bigger group of people to ask from, because although these results revealed what we were trying to prove, it did not provide sufficient data and consistency throughout for us to make a thorough analysis.  Nevertheless, we came to a conclusion that every little detail that, although the people deny do not affect their vote, does affect their decision.