2012 presidential election

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

Romney’s Leadership Potential: Allow Strengths to Outweigh Weaknesses

by Craig Ricks

Widener University Class of 2012

Editor’s Note: In the following series of posts students will discuss Mitt Romney’s leadership qualities based on Fred Greenstein’s The Presidential Difference: Leadership Style from FDR to Barack Obama.

Mitt Romney is just months away from officially being announced as the Republican presidential nominee.  If he were to win the election in November, what type of president and how effective would he be?  Based on Fred I. Greenstein’s characteristics outlined in The Presidential Difference, Romney’s potential can be evaluated.

Greenstein’s first quality is a president’s public communication skills.  Romney is a very elegant public speaker, which he can use to his advantage.  He carries with him a spirited sense of confidence and seems to know what to say at any given moment.  To his disadvantage, however, is the fact that he often has trouble relating to people of the middle and lower classes.  If he can find a way to better relate to these members of society, he will have no weakness in the public arena.  The second key presidential quality is organizational capacity.  When the 2002 Winter Olympics were in jeopardy of being moved from Salt Lake City, Utah, Romney was appointed to take over control of the reigns.  Facing a steep budget deficit for the games, Romney managed to turn the program around.  He changed the leadership and policies of the organization, reduced the budget, and increased fund raising.  His ability to take a damaged program in jeopardy of relocation and turn it around perfectly displays his organizational capacity.

The third and fourth qualities for a successful leader are the president’s political skill and his ability to use that skill to achieve his vision.  While Romney is an above average political operator, as displayed by his ability to lobby Congress for funds for the 2002 Winter Olympics, he lacks a real vision.  Throughout his political career, Romney has flip-flopped on policies because it was the best political move.  If he had a true vision, he would stick to the same policy, but try to convince others that his ideas were for the betterment of everyone.  One example of Romney holding a contradictory position is with respect to universal health care.  As governor of Massachusetts, he set up a universal program for the state; he also opposed President Obama’s universal plan for the country.  His argument was that it was right for his state, but it is not the right move at the national level.

The fifth quality is the cognitive style of the president.  Romney is a very intelligent person, and should be able to use this to weigh any information and ideas given to him.  He displayed his superb cognitive abilities in handling the 2002 Winter Olympics situation.  Along with his organizational skills, this should prove to be Romney’s greatest strength.  The president’s emotional intelligence is Greenstein’s final quality to assess presidential leadership.  Romney appears to be below average in this category, however.  As mentioned previously, he has trouble communicating and relating to the middle and lower class, on both a fiscal and emotional level.

Like each of the president’s Greenstein studied, Romney displays strengths in some of these qualities and weaknesses in others.  If he can use his strengths to compensate in other areas he is lacking, he will be able to lead the country successfully, if he is elected.  However, if he allows his weaknesses to get the better of him, his possible presidency could be tarnished.