Widener Students on Politics

by

Are Debates Really Important?

by Danny Griffin

Widener University American Government Student

Television debates were first introduced in 1960 and have played a significant part in the election process.  Voters have felt that they can learn much more about a candidate from watching him on TV than reading about him in a newspaper article. However, some people feel that news organizations downplay the role of debates in elections. An interesting theory behind the lack of “hype” is that it is much more exciting for viewers to discover a story from the unexpected than for people to get what they expect. The author of an article regarding the current presidential debates calls the phenomenon “Hype against Hype” (CSMonitor).

Regardless of media ploys, the debates are a good source of information for voters to inform themselves on the candidates they will be choosing between. Personally, I know that I am not well versed in the finer points of Obama or Romney’s campaign platforms. By watching tonight’s debate I will be able to make a more enlightened decision with more confidence. I am also sure that I am not the only American in my position; debates are a major pillar of campaign momentum. Therefore, many people such as myself will be compelled to watch and develop a better understanding of the upcoming political situation.

by

More of the Same? Or Romney’s 50 Nation Plan?

by Tori Remondelli

Widener University American Government Student

The first presidential debate was between an eloquent, enthusiastic speaker who beat around the bush and a supposed lock for the presidency who didn’t prepare as well as he should have. Mr. Romney, former governor of what he made out to be the best state in America, wants to give more power to each individual state in an effort to try and make them a little more like Massachusetts. It wasn’t very clear what Mr. President’s counter proposal was, so we can assume that nothing will change.

My mother who is a born and bred Republican believes that if you don’t like the way your state is run, then you should be able to move to a different state where the control will be different. But if the government sets regulations that every state must abide by, then you have no choice but to throw your vote into a pool of every American voter and pray you pick the same as the majority.

What I got from that debate was a choice between President Change’s same old ways or Romney’s 50 Nations policy. However, neither provided the details of their plan.  A choice is only as good as the reasons behind it and right now neither one of the candidate have provided enough reasons to merit one. Hopefully the next debate will bring more clarity, but only time will tell.

by

Using Super PACs to End Super PACs?

by Amanda Raimer

Widener University American Government Student

An article in the New York Times, “’Super PACs’ Finally a Draw for Democrats”, discusses how more donors are coming forward and giving large sums of money to the super PACs that support Democrats, like Priorities USA. However, they found that these newcomers were not the same categories of people who donated in the 2008 campaign, but instead are centralized to “pre-Obama” Democratic supporters such as trial lawyers, unions, and Hollywood. They also found that many of the new donors had previously been wary of super PACs as a source of unlimited funds and did not want to support these groups they felt were abusing the loophole developed in the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling.  Now, however, these people feel like the only way to shut down these super PACs is to use that power to elect officials who will change the law to eliminate these groups.

While the amount of money raised by super PACs shows that Republicans have been exploiting this track more than the Democrats, attempting to raise over three times as much money, I’m not sure that this tactic will take down the super PACs, it may make them more powerful than they already are. Giving money to these super PACs increases their power and pull in the campaign, and I think that officials, regardless of political party, will have a hard time giving up such a large source of money without being forced. Also, these groups are so important to the Republican campaigns that any campaign finance reform involving taking away super PACs will not get enough support in our federal government to establish a new policy. Giving money to these super PACs in an effort to get rid of them seems to only strengthen them further and establish an even more critical role for these groups in campaign finance.

by

Retro Swagger?

by Fred Hew
Widener University American Government Student

The two Presidential candidates have a common view: that American politics and economic values should rule the world. The country found out about their difference in recent foreign policy speeches in New York. Romney is all about the hands on approach of conditioning countries to do the right thing. Rewarding ally countries, Israel, and condemning others, like Iran. Iran has been non cooperative in the past and if elected, Romney would place a military presence in Iran.

Obama is standing by his current policy of assisting Iran to see the light of American culture. The Iranians would be more likely to accept our political and economic system long term if they weren’t forced to adopt it, like Romney is suggesting. It is believed that if Romney were to win the election a lot of the swagger from the George W. Bush presidency would return to foreign policy. The hard-nosed, hands on approach would return to the White House and that’s something that appeals to many Americans, unlike Obama’s diplomatic approach.

Now which way is a smarter approach? Probably the Democratic method of thinking first, rather than running into a fire fight without any ammo. Romney’s way of forcing ourselves upon other allied countries like Egypt isn’t necessarily the right way to go about things. He could quickly make more enemies by his proposal of taking away aid from the Egyptians because they don’t share the same values as us. Either way, the two candidates have completely opposite views of how we should be viewed from the outside looking in. Romney believes we, as a country, can get anything we want in whichever way we please. Abusing our power isn’t something that Americans should strive to do, especially to allied countries.

by

New Voter ID Laws and Their Significance

By Nicole Crossey
Widener University American Government Student

To think of how far America has come, since its inception 236 years ago, is amazing! Voting rights have changed dramatically. The 15th Amendment gave everyone the right to vote regardless of race, the 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote, and the 26th Amendment allowed anyone 18 years and older to vote. Voting is an inalienable right. Allowing everyone’s voice to be heard in a federal republic is one of the United States’ shining attributes.

 However, is our voting system flawed? Does voter fraud exist?

 In Choicet and Valdes’s “New voting measures could deter Latinos, civil rights group says”, some believe “voter fraud is non-existent”. New voter ID laws are “trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist and has a disparate impact on people of color”. However, voter fraud is a growing problem. The increase in absentee voting has garnered the concern of watchdog groups. Some people have voted twice in different states because absentee voting laws have been loosened in many states.

 It is only logical that the government wants to preserve the “integrity of the vote”. New voter ID laws require voters to “prove their citizenship or be purged from voting rolls”. Some efforts of these new laws include:  purging rolls of non-citizen voters, proof of citizenship requirements for voter registration, and photo ID laws.

What’s the big deal about these laws? Well, nearly “half of the nation’s states have instituted new voting measures” and these measures could limit minorities from “heading to the polls”. Some calculate that as many as “10 million Latinos will be prevented from registering and heading to the polls in the 2012 elections”. However, some postulate that this estimate is “ridiculous”.

This debate is “divided right down party lines”. Democrats believe that the “new measures limit minority turnout in crucial battleground states”, while Republicans believe that the new measures “fight fraud”. Historically, minorities lean towards being a Democrat so these new measures would hurt Democrats in the polls.

The notion of “discriminating” against the minority community led to a lot of controversy regarding the Pennsylvania voter ID law, which requires voters to present a state-issued photo ID. While this law was sent back to Pennsylvania’s lower courts to “assess alternative forms of identification and whether the new law disenfranchises voters”, the controversy remains and more questions arise. Some argue that this law “strengthens voting procedures and protects against fraud”, but others question how they will obtain the state-issued photo ID. This is harder than one may think. The poor, elderly, and handicapped will have a difficult time going to the DMV and paying for the new ID. This also inconveniences people who live in urban areas and who ride public transport because they probably will not have driver’s license.

Are these laws being supported on the basis of preserving the integrity of our government or in the best interest of the people? It seems as though the “arguments for the voter laws are based on analysis of government documents and data, media reports and scholarly works”—not thinking about the effects they might have on people. Some also argue the laws infringe on their inalienable right to vote.

Personally, I think that the new voter ID laws are just and well-founded. However, I think that the government DOES need to give people time and outlets to obtain the necessary identification. Therefore, I don’t think the Pennsylvania voter ID law should be enforced for this election. I think these new laws will scare some people of minority to not vote and, therefore, these laws will have a major impact on this election.

by

A Different Perspective on Presidential Personality

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.