Come to the Widener Pride Cafe tonight to watch the Presidential Debate. The Political Science Faculty will be live chatting during the debate on
http://www.facebook.com/WidenerPoliSci
Twitter: @WidenerPoliSci
Twitter: #WidenerVotes2012
If there are any federalism implications in tonight’s debate I will blog about them tomorrow.
by Bridget Hicks
Widener University American Government Student
As a whole, the country expects a leader to possess the quality of extroversion. How can a leader perform their duties by being introverted (What if Introverts Ruled the World? By Richard Stengel)?
Candidates in the presidential race are always supporting their cause at rallies or events while those who are voted into the presidency attend various social events and gatherings while they continuously work with others to lead the country. The thing people wonder would be if this is possible to do being a introvert. It is possible.
In fact both candidates in this 2012 presidential race, President Obama as well as Mitt Romney, are mainly introverted. By no means does this label them as unsocial or incompetent in social situations but it means they are more comfortable in social situations where they are around close friends or coworkers instead of large crowds of people whom they do not know. In this they may choose to be alone for a while to make a decision rather than being surrounded by others while they try to ponder an idea.
With this in mind, the typical idea that a president must be extroverted is indeed untrue. A president can do great things for the country and go against the “norm” by being introverted, just as the two presidential candidates are for this 2012 race.
by Frank Heleniak
Widener University American Government Student
Well it’s about to be October, and if you watch any type of TV, chances are you’re dreading every commercial break. Ah yes, the wonderful TV political campaign in which every candidate on the ballot is horrible choice (at least by their opponent’s standards) or has some time of skeleton in the closet. Yeah chances are you’re like 71% of all Americans who have negative thoughts of Politicians. Even if it’s just from interrupting your regular programming.
Of course there’s much more to it. People just aren’t happy in general, and they don’t trust politicians. Why? Well personal opinion is pure rhetoric in both campaigns (the local elections aren’t left out thought). There isn’t enough “doing,” just a lot of talk. Four years ago I listened to the President preach “Hope” and “Change.” Has there been hope? Surely. Change? Definitely I pay almost three times as much now to fill up my truck. I know what you’re thinking. I’ll nip it in the bud and say Bush wasn’t a saint either.
Blue or red, you’re going to stand up for your party, probably blindly. However if you’re more of a purple, you probably find a lot of fault in both candidates. So what are the Dems and GOP going to do about it? Probably nothing, but what happens when it boils over, and the general non-politically bound public stops voting for anyone because they honestly feel either candidate will do the same things? Maybe there will no longer be parties, and politicians will be labeled with a black spot.
Candidates are putting in a lot of time, focus and money on the undecided voters in the upcoming election even though they make up about 2% of this nations voting population. Even within this small percentage the parties are sending all of their attention to the eight states that are still not solidly leaning one way or the other.
Attack ads have been the norm throughout the current election cycle. Whether through the television, radio, newspapers, or ads in general, the undecided voters will always be able to hear about the worst of the worst of both candidates. It seems these ads could be put to better use if used to talk about the good the candidate will do if elected. Instead a large amount of money is used to bash their competitor to make them seen unfit to be president.
Tens of millions of dollars are being spent on these voters. The money might go to better use by just dividing it all up and giving it to the undecided voter directly. Instead both parties are force-feeding these people all the bad about the other contender instead of making themselves seem more appealing to vote for.
From interviews with undecided voters we have found out that some may just not vote at all. After hearing all the slander about both contenders, these voters feel that neither candidate is worthy of their vote, so they might just not give one at all. So it seems in the end undecided voters aren’t really a make or break in deciding whom our next president will be, instead we have just continued to waste more money in the race to the White House.
The Electoral College was, at one time, the single most efficient and reliable way to conduct a presidential election. Due to geographical and technological deficiencies, it provided an accurate and time efficient manner with which to conduct a democratic election. However, it is a product of an era that is now the past instead of the present.
The Electoral College does not allow the opinion of the people to be heard, opting for a point based system that puts higher value on states with higher populations. In this year’s election it will take a minimum of 11 states to win. They combine to represent 59.81 percent of the population based off the 2010 consensus. However, it will only take 50.01 percent of the vote in each state to secure their Electoral College votes. That means a candidate could win the presidency with as small as 29.91 percent of the country voting for him or her.
America was founded to be a country of the people, by the people and for the people. I can’t imagine our Founders believed in a democracy where less than 30% of the population could choose the president. In a country where we can communicate face to face with anyone we wish, it is time to begin electing or presidents through the popular vote. The technology has arrived to allow us to do so and anything short of a complete move away from the Electoral College is as irresponsible as it is archaic.
by Frank Heleniak
Widener University American Government Student
As I’m sure is the case with many students around the US right now, many professors/teachers have harped on their students to watch both the Republican and Democratic conventions – especially to the speeches of the two candidates. Instantly the thought of bypassing both broadcasts popped into my head, and apparently Republican candidate Mitt Romney agreed with me. He claimed to not watch the DNC either.
As a 20 year old Engineering student, maybe my main reason for not watching President Obama’s speech is because I (and maybe the country) would be better off finishing homework and reports. However it could also be my preconceived notion of endless rhetoric from the President over the last four years and that creates a bond between myself and Presidential hopeful Romney. The Republican nominee cites another series of “new promises that [President Obama] is not going to keep” as his main reason for not watching the President’s speech, that Romney “saw the promises the last time.”
My opinion on the President aside, at first glance this doesn’t seem tremendously intelligent. If I was going up against anyone, I’d like to have as much information on them as possible. But maybe there is more to his public announcement. It very well could be a ploy to appeal to conservatives as a stance of action against the President’s “promises he did not keep.” For Mitt’s sake, hopefully a lot of voters on the bubble followed his example.
The American Partnership 