Widener Students on Politics

by

Shocking: Most of America Hates Politicians

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.

by

Undecided Voters

by Erica Sharp
Widener University American Government Student

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.

by

The Need for a Change

by Ryan Devine
Widener University American Government Student

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

Romney Didn’t Watch Democratic Convention Either

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.

by

Are Americans Better or Worse Off Than 4 Years Ago?

By Nicole Crossey, Widener University Student

As Americans are we better off, worse off or neither than we were 4 years ago?

In Landler’s “‘Are You Better Off?’ The Answer Is Less Clear than It Was in 1980” and Rutenberg’s “Democrats say that U.S. is Better Off than Four Years ago”, a mix of good and bad appears and makes that question hard to answer. Democrats say we are better off and Republicans say we are worse off.

The Democrats use the “auto bailout, Osama Bin Laden, supporting gay marriage, ending don’t ask, don’t tell, easing the threat of deportation to illegal immigrants, and the healthcare overhaul” as points of progress in these past 4 years.

The Republicans say that we are worse off—“federal debt is ballooning”, the unemployment rate is still bad and housing rates are not better. “47% of Americans think we are worse off” since Obama has entered office.

For some, our recovery is too slow. Jobs have been added to the economy, but government spending cuts have slowed this growth. While Obama has racked up $5 Trillion in national debt, we are still recovering from the Bush Administration (tax cuts, debt, Medicare prescription drug coverage, and wars).

Ultimately, I think voters will give Obama more time in office because he has put us on a path of “sustainable recovery” and he kept us from falling into a “double-dip recession”. However, Romney did throw Obama for a loop on this question—perhaps we will see more like this.

Looking at the state of our nation statistically, we are worse off. In the context that we are recovering from one of the worst recessions in history, we are better off. Therefore, it depends whether the “glass is half empty or half full” to voters.

by

Revamping the Electoral College

by Andrea Stickley

Widener University Political Science Major

The current Electoral College should be abolished and a new one instituted in America. While the foundations of our current Electoral College are very strong and make sense, some tweaking needs to occur to make the system better. The main issue is the possibility of a presidential nominee winning the popular vote, but not getting enough votes from the Electoral College to become president. This shouldn’t be allowed to happen. There is a reason that one candidate receives the most votes from the people- because the voters believe that person would make the best president out of the candidates. The whole purpose behind the founding of America was that the people would be represented by who they felt had their best interests at heart; hence, the presidential nominee who receives the most votes in the popular election. When this isn’t allowed to happen, it brings into question why someone is president that most of the people don’t have faith in.

The other problem with our current Electoral College is that it basically eliminates a third-party candidate from having a chance at winning. This comes back to Duverger’s Law and the fact that with a winner-take-all method implemented in states to delegate votes in the Electoral College it doesn’t allow a third-party candidate to ever receive votes really, despite the possibility of winning a percentage of the popular vote. With a plurality system in place, it doesn’t place any emphasis on the smaller parties, leading to a two-party system essentially. America is supposed to be about the minority and representing them and giving them a voice, but with this method of voting, it is repressing the smaller parties and what they stand for. Especially in these times when other parties are starting to gain more support, they need to have a chance to gain votes in the Electoral College and make an impact in the election.

This isn’t to say that everything about the Electoral College is bad. There are some positives to it, such as having the people elect who becomes part of the Electoral College and the fact that it is based off of the number of representatives a state has in Congress. The problem becomes when candidates receive votes from the Electoral College that they shouldn’t because it doesn’t reflect the popular vote. The key is to give the American people what they want, which means making sure that whoever receives the most national votes should win the election in the Electoral College, too. That’s the main issue.