Widener Students on Politics

by

Is the “no budget, no pay” unconstitutional?

by Ashley Bidne

Widener University Political Science/Criminal Justice Major

We all know the stereotypes that say congress is incapable of agreeing or compromising on anything. America is now facing approximately $16 trillion in debt and for almost 4 years the United States has not had a set budget.  Any average citizen would find themselves hiding from collectors and moving back in with their parents. However, the federal budget is not so simple. Now a “no budget, no pay” bill has been passed extending the debt limit and holding congress accountable for a budget.

Although, many are claiming this bill is unconstitutional according to the 27th Amendment. The 27th amendment reads “No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened,” In my opinion, this simply limits senators and representatives from raising their pay until after  congressional elections, except for Cost of Living Allowances. The bill would not reduce members pay, but withhold it. This puts ample amount of pressure on Representatives and Senators to finally make a budget for the United States. My only concern is whether their paychecks will take priority over what is best for our country and its finances.  However, we can all agree that four years is a significant amount of time to be without a budget, it is time to put pressure on congress to do their job.

by

The United States is Unrepresentative

by Nicole Crossey

Widener University American Government Student

Democracy is defined as the government by the people with free and frequent elections. The United States was founded on the idea of the “will of the people.” In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson declared that a government is only legitimate with the “consent of the governed.” A successful government needs legitimacy, power and authority. By the American people being the center, in theory, politicians will always try to appeal to the people and seem to be aware of what the people desire. The people’s voice should be heard and represented accurately. The will of the people is constructed by the processes of our political system as well as elections. Our voice was designed to be limited and checked because we were not trusted by the Founders. Pulling at each other constantly, the ideas of minority and majority cause some views to be promoted while others to be denied. The electoral process does not reflect the will of the people, but rather oppresses and “spins” it.

Out of fear of returning to monarchial rule, the Founders decided to limit government’s powers, make the law objective, guarantee rights, design the structure of government, and protect people from other people. With the Constitution, the Founders designed a government based on the consent of the people, a negative view of human nature, and limiting the power of the government.  The concept behind American government is based on federalism, separation of powers, an extended republic, checks and balances, and a republican government. The governmental system boils down to a majority-rule electoral process and minority-rule institutions. Political conflict and gridlock are inevitable, and the people victims.

In Federalist Paper Number 39, James Madison argues for a republican government. The United States has a republican government because the will of the people is heard in some form at every level of government; however the people directly elect members of the House of Representatives. Elections, in theory, are supposed to voice the will of the people and not interpret it. The President is selected by the Electoral College because the Founders believed most citizens to be too incompetent and inherently power-hungry to participate in the political system. State governments establish procedural rules on elections like how votes are to be counted and how the electors are nominated. These rules interpret the voice of the people rather than reflect it because a mistake on a ballot becomes a vote not counted. The presidential election of 2000 proves that the Electoral College is an aspect of the government that is archaic and in need of change. While Democrat Al Gore won the popular vote, Republican George W. Bush was elected president by the Electoral College because the votes in Florida were recounted. Many argue that this election, and the four other presidential elections in the past that have been decided by the Electoral College, oppressed the views of the people and signals that the priorities of the government are not in place.

The American people are misrepresented in the government as women and people of color hold few positions in the government. There is no doubt that age, sex, religion, and race are sources of tension within the United States. However, most of the government remains middle-aged, Caucasian, male, well-educated, and Christian. Women “have it harder because it is a male-dominated, dog-eat-dog field and they have to be merciless with their appearance lest they look weak, inexperienced or unprofessional” (Semiatin 194). The media reinforces stereotypes that politicians are supposed to abide by, and if women candidates do not, then they are weak. Like women, minority candidates have a hard time breaking into the political arena because they must try to conform to the rest of the government, rather than embrace what makes them different. Minority candidates avoid “employing direct racial appeals and avoid emphasizing a racially specific agenda” (Semiatin 212) because they want a say in government. The electoral process does not accurately reflect the demographics, and therefore the beliefs, of minorities and women. Hence, the diverse constituency of the United States is represented by an overwhelming majority that does not reflect the will of the people. On the contrary, it must be noted that the promotion or exaggeration of minority rights does infringe on the rights of the majority. The views and the attitudes of people in the minority determine whether a case is to be heard in the Supreme Court as well as the rules in the Senate protect the voice of individual Senators through unlimited debate. The media makes it difficult for a woman or a minority to be elected to a governmental position because the media is run by a majority of people, who have specific interests.

The paid media and political campaigns reach out to voters because they want power and influence in the government, rather than addressing the root issues of people. These goldmines aggravate the vicious cycle of public ambivalence and political disengagement because politics seems like a complicated, underhanded process that is not capable of being changed. Continuous elections contribute to voter fatigue and thus political disengagement within some constituencies. These same people also, ironically, chose not to participate in the political process because the government does not address their needs. Consequently, the government does not address the needs of the people because it is too focused on self-interested prospects and the people show no objection. Like the government, the media is a divisive force within the constituency. The media has always tried to change our perspectives on events and people, but in recent years the media is more influential because people have more access to technology. “The media can make a candidate look too good to be true, even if that candidate is not at all competent for the position” (Semiatin 141). On the other hand, the media can deface a candidate like “Al Gore or George W. Bush” (Semiatin 146). In the era of technology, media caters to people who can afford it. The “internet changes the financial equation by creating a digital divide among end users those who can fully consume information and news on the internet users and those with limited or no access” (Semiatin 144). It is not democratic to ignore people who can’t afford the internet or other technology for “reasons of finance, occupation, or age.” To aggregate the public’s likes and dislikes, many political campaigns and parties use microtargeting. Campaigns use this to mobilize and attract voters to their campaign. Political campaigns will focus on certain traits and determine whether a certain voter is worth their time and money. This mentality proves that the media and political campaigns all have a target audience and ignore the rest of the population who is not worth their time and money or because they are simply unreachable.

While the people are supposed to be central in government, money and power are the universe to politicians. The United States has “a government-regulated system in which individual contributions to federal candidates are limited, but spending by candidates and outside groups is unlimited” (Semiatin 131). The campaign finance system is another area in politics that caters to people who can afford to participate. This system is so complicated that people do not know how to hold candidates or political parties accountable. Candidates are forced to constantly fundraise because they have no public funding. A solution would be to “repeal” the contribution caps and make the process more transparent (Faucheux 1). In essence, the United States has a campaign system that twists an image of a candidate to please their interests, the misrepresentation of the American people, and a political participation system that is limited to the wealthy. Essentially, anyone who cannot afford to spend “$2,500” individually has no stake in the electoral process as we have seen that the people’s vote is interpreted by the Electoral College.

Fraught with self-interested prospects like reelection, policy entrepreneurship, and prestige in institutions and the Washington community, members of political parties do not reflect or represent the will of the people. The electoral system is rigged to ensure job security and minimal accountability for representatives of the people. Incumbents are almost guaranteed to get reelected because political parties make him or her look like a celebrity, give him advantages over the opposition, and redistricting to reinforce his or her control over the district or state. Political polarization makes it hard to “adapt to changes in political environment, to changes in the demographic composition of the electorate and to the ever-evolving technological means of campaign communication and fundraising” (Semiatin 118). It seems as though political parties use people as vehicles for regaining or maintaining power, rather than their focus. The two party system of our government—the Democrats and Republicans—denies the voice of people in third parties. In the United States, we pride ourselves for being tolerant and open to change, but we have a “winner take all” system where minority rights and beliefs are denied, like in the House of Representatives.

A major reason political parties are disconnected from the people is because of the overwhelming influence of interest groups. Interest groups represent interests, educate politicians about issues, and advise them on how to solve these issues. They have an incentive to compete with political parties in order to put certain issues on the agenda. While interest groups spend money “advertising issues and promote the fortunes of sympathetic candidates,” they also “reach out to the constituency” (Semiatin 122). Political parties and incumbents want to get the monetary and advertising assistance that interest groups bring. Rather than investing their time and money into issues that directly affect people like school supplies, representatives choose interest groups because they fortify the representatives’ self-interested prospects. All throughout the government, interest groups want to get their issue on the agenda by donating money or using advertisements to support an individual. Interest groups represent minority beliefs, yet they drive the drafting of policy in government.

The people’s voice is not heard or formed properly because of the money game in political campaigns, interest groups, the media, and political parties. A solution would be to remove the dirty from politics. With “public funding, more access to information, and all candidates having an equal chance at getting elected without microtargeting and media manipulation” the will of the people must be heard and distributed in the government (Semiatin 239).

by

Laying Out the Case for the Electoral College

by Michael Acciavatti

Widener University Political Science Major

I believe the electoral college should be retained for various reasons. First the system is a balance between two alternate systems. One where Congress chooses the president which goes against all the stances of separation of power, and two where the president is elected by a full popular vote.

I’d like to highlight a few reasons why change would not work and why our current system is best. First to win a candidate needs to win multiple majorities in various states which is very important. Secondly, if the election were fully popular vote then campaigns would focus on large metropolitan and population centers rather than the entire country as it should be. Also to change the Constitution it would take a 3/4 state majority, and you would need to change the Constitution in order to change the election process. Finally for practical purposes state-wide recounts are much simpler than a national one which could take so long it would hurt America’s image.

by

The Good in the Bad

by Ty Erb

Widener University American Government Student

Many weeks have passed since the election, and by now everyone knows President Obama is back in office for another four years.  His opponent, Mitt Romney, has nearly been forgotten after the loss.  Even though it was a loss for the Republicans, they search for the positive things that happened during this race.  One thing Romney did well was raise money.  Surprising, Romney matched Obama in the fundraising department and even had more money at his disposal the last two weeks of the race.  For the Republicans to ever think about winning, raising money like Romney did needs to be repeated.  Another positive aspect of Romney’s campaign was his debating techniques versus President Obama.  Romney held his own against the President and at time even defeated the President during their several debates.  It is necessary for the next Republican candidate to have strong debating qualities, similar to Romney’s.  The final aspects Romney achieved in was the economy voters.  Exit polls revealed about 6 out of 10 voters said the economy was the major issue in the United States.  Out of the voters Romney received 51% of their votes to Obama’s 47%.  Overall, Romney had positive aspects to his campaign but there was also negative.  For the Republicans to win the next race, the candidate needs to do the things Romney did well but also appeal to a larger voting group, mainly the minorities in America.

by

Closer to Compromise

by Amanda Raimer

Widener University American Government Student

Now that Obama has successfully won re-election his focus has become passing a budget and with no worries about trying to win another term he has set a hard line. He has said that we will reject any budget that does not raise the tax rates on income above $250,000. While it may seem that Obama is suffering from a subtle bout of “triumphalism” and is supercharged from winning the election, at the same time he admitted that there must be compromise and that the top tax rates may end up being lower than during the Clinton administration. The Republican Party has also stated that there needs to be a compromise from both sides. The problem is that both sides have a different idea about what a compromise would entail and how to reach it.

I think that even the process of admitting that there needs to be a compromise and both parties realizing that that they are going to have to give up parts of the budget that they feel strongly about shows that they have become more open to a reasonable compromise. Also, Obama’s deadline has also set a fire beneath Congress to get something settled before the start of the New Year. Obama has also admitted that while he is interested in trying to pass other policies on subjects such as immigration and climate change, he realizes that this will take time and the budget must be the focus at this point. While I’m not saying passing the budget has suddenly become a piece of cake, the more open attitudes of both parties along with the ultimatum set by Obama makes me think that a budget is much more likely to be passed this time around.

by

The Billy Beane of Politics?

By Ryan Devine

Widener University American Government Student

As an individual who has read “Moneyball” 13 times, and counting, I am very familiar with the undeniable benefits that saber metrics provided over the traditional methods of scouting and forming a baseball team.  Thankfully, sabermetrics and classical baseball evaluation seem to have merged in a harmonic balance that keeps the purity of the game with the advances in statistics.  However, one man has decided to take what he learned from baseball and has become a force of nature in the world of political science.

Nate Silver, who started off working for Baseballprospectus.com, has taken his specially developed talents for looking beyond the face numbers to deliver two simply stellar performances in predicting the 2008 and 2012 elections.  He began the 2008 campaign by predicting the number of super delegates within a dozen of President Obama’s actual count.  He then followed up his early predictions by throwing a gem, correctly predicting 49 of the 50 states in the Electoral College and correctly predicted every senatorial seat that was up for grabs.  However, Silver was not done there; he decided that he would follow up his 08 election with an even better performance. He did by throwing a perfect game in this election.

While Silver begun his career of political analyzing after just a year of focusing on politics, he has clearly brought a validity and popularity to the world of political science, registering 5 million web hits the day of the election alone.  Nate has effectively taken the science of voter research and developed a method to predict the winner independent of the biases of the conventional media markets that are simply looking to spin polling information one way or another in order to fit their agenda.