Campaign Reform/ Primaries

Have new rules concerning primaries accidently affected the way people vote and think in America? I believe its a resounding yes. On one hand, primaries exhibit democracy at its fullest: enabling every available voter to sound off on which candidate has the best chance of winning. Also, the simplicity of the system is a definate bonus in determining the right candidate. But, as a lot of things in the political world, what are the unintended consequences of primaries? I believe a major argument against the primary machine is the act of front-loading. Early primaries, such as Iowa, now hold a huge influence on the potential fate of how votes are cast. I think a perfect example of this can be found in 04 campaign for the Democratic ticket. Dick Gephardt was the leading candidate in the polls leading up to the Iowa primary, but John Kerry recognized the influence that Iowa can have by pouring millions of dollars into the state to swing voters to an eventually win. Gephardt's campaign lost a lot of steam, while Kerry went on to the Democratic convention. Iowa set the tone for the race, probably perseuding undecisive voters in other states to vote for the leading vote getter after the first primary. A 2nd point to consider is the affect of campaign finance reform has over the nomination and election of candidates in the primaries. According to OpenSecrets.org, "These groups represent a variety of positions on a variety of issues, but they have one thing in common: they influence how you look at the candidates." Groups, such as 527's, PAC's, and other advocacy groups, wield a powerful influence over voters that may not be the most informed: using this finance sways the independent vote towards the candidate they want in office, influencing perception against reality on the American voter mind, using voter mobilization, and cunning ads.

Can factions be eliminated freom American elections? If Madison got his wish, this would be a reality, but in the grand scheme of a national election, is it even possible? Madison stated that the effect of one faction cannot be overly negative to undermine the political system. Is this possible in todays age for one faction to essentially control both parties in their influence? I believe that to control both wings of the political spectrum is a long shot, but to control one party can be a possibilty. According to OpenSecrets.com, the rebuplican party received 75% of 26 million from Oil and Gas advocacy groups. How will these groups see payback? Legislative sentiment, tax refunds, or deregulation are just some of the ways that Oil and Gas groups can see returns on their investments. American factions are here to stay; as long as the money flows from these groups into campaigning, the comprimising of legislative empathy will live on.

The 2008 Presidental race shows a perfect example of how the electoral process affects the eventual nomination and acceptence of a candidate. On one hand, the democratic party is convinced that it's time for nominating against the normal grain of the standard white male: the party pitted a woman vs. an African-American. Citing party polls and opinions, the democratic brass tried to feel out which candidate has the best chance for office, using Obama's minority status, eloquent cander, stances against the current administration, and position on foregin affairs versus Clinton's women vote, experience with past administrations, and plan for health care reform. The party then polled and polled and polled and even called in the Legion of Super Delagetes to decided who has the best chance to win office, or to put in more specific terms, who has the best chance to sway the votes of the moderates.
In this sample case, was there really another chance for a different voice to be heard on the left side? Clinton and Obama have been setting up their high office run since 2005, when Bush was sworn in for his second term. All the Dems have heard where these 2 main candidates , not much other real possibilities where ever presented ( Kerry, Gore, Edwards, ugh...). Did the 08 dem primaries present any suprises or outside thoughts or other options? In my mind, a party should be open to the possibilities that numerous people could be the right nominee, not just 2 over 3 years. In this sense, the primaries are bad for the voters, having little to chose from in the way of a candidate that suits their views the best, but good for parties, in relaying the best possible winner in the election to the forefront, a best of the best, survial of the fitest competition.
Does Obama provide the W desperately needed for the left wing? That remains to be seen. But for the power of the highest office in the country, you better believe that any political party with beat the electoral institution to death in order to satisfy the party's demand to win electoral office.

What is a political party?

In my view, political parties are organizational machines created to gain control of a democratic government, through financial support, policy amending control, and the selection of viable candidates who support most of these parties views and stances. Washington's farewell address brings up a interesting point of view concerning political parties. According to his speech, Washington was fearful of party organization. But why? Was revolt the reasoniong behind his statements? or revolt against his organiztion, his blood sweat and tears, his friends, his system? Washington had no desire to become the proclaimmed monarch of the new America, but was he worried of a new party forming that was still loyalist to the British crown? I think Washington had the desires and concerns of the people in the forefreont: Washington may have feared political parties will eventually lead to more centralized factions among the people, leading to parties centered around the elite, the populus needs ignored, and, eventually, a North vs South, sacrificing public liberty in the process. On the other hand, DeLay's speech makes him out to be an advocate of the political system. I think congress may have realized in the past 100 years that have centrtalized power definately isnt a bad thing; how can we hold onto these seats and still cover the ears and eyes of the American people? Enter a 2 party system, where congressmen like DeLay have no real threat of outside opinion and opposition. Sure, there are 2 parties, but does the policy making and decisions really change drastically with each new congress? The 2 party system has created a loophole in the process of decision making of the American voters; dont venture too far from the status quo and power will remain in the same hands.

Intro

9/4

- " The government that governs least, governs best." - Thomas Jefferson
I know I'm in the minority, expecially on a college campus, but this single statement may best reflect my hopes of where our political attitudes may evolve towards. I have always been interested in the game of politics; from the tradeoffs to the kickbacks to the glimmer of of actual hope and progress that potentially shines through and what we hope to achieve. I hope to progress my understanding of politics through this online course, which really plays into a busy work and home schedule. My only fear is that the classroom discussion of arguable topics is sacrificed but I'm sure we will be able to find a way. A little about myself: I'm a libertarian, an endangered species, and no, I dont like Nascar, country music, and I did not grow up in the Hamptons.