I vote forrrrrrrr

LOWERING THE VOTING AGE! Or at the very least there should be some sort of compromise. I will be 18 a mere 2 days after the election, so to me, it seems ridiculous that I'm missing out on the election. There's talk about the age being lowered to 16, but that would sort of undermine the fact that most states recognized 18 year olds as adults...therefore they would technically be allowing "children" to be voting on the ruler of the county. Why don't we meet somewhere in the middle? What about if the person is 18 by the date of the new president's inauguration? That seems fair since nothing could feasibly change about that person in a 2 month span.
I can see why some people would want the age to be 16...it's like learning a language. The earlier you are exposed to a new language, the better chance you have of actyally learning that language...it's just the way that your brain absorbs the information. Therefore, it would make sense that the earlier you are exposed to politics and the process in becoming president, the better informed you would be later in life/in voting.
Maybe a good solution would be in introduce government classes to students in middle school and possibly even earlier. That way, the age could be lowered and the young voters would be recognized as "good" voters.

However, I think that this is highly unlikely, and therefore think that if you are 18 by the time of inauguration, you should be allowed to vote.

Electoral College

The biggest example that supports the decision to change the electoral college is the election of 2000.
"In most years the system provokes little controversy: The winner of the popular vote usually wins the Electoral College vote too. But in 2000, George W. Bush won the presidency after losing the popular election by more than 500,000 votes. How? He garnered 271 electoral votes — one more than the 270 votes needed for a simple majority."

Now, I don't want to get into whether or not I believe that Bush is a good president or anything like that, but I have to say- I don't believe that he should have won the presidency this way. By the electors getting to cast their votes, which apparently have infinitely more power than the vote of the individual, completely silences the 500,000 people that didn't vote for Bush. What on Earth is supposed to entice the average American to vote if they feel that it's a moot point? It doesn't add up that there are commercials and other various modes of advertising pressuring us to "Vote or Die" (thanks, Paris!)and then have those votes cast aside by the electors.

Yes, the College provides us with a clear winner, and allows there to be a fair distribution of power between the states and feds, however, who do we think makes up the states's votes? THE PEOPLE DO. So why have them vote and have their voices "heard" if the Big Wigs of the states are actually those that count? Why don't we just shorten the process, save the candidates money on advertising and just have the electors vote on who they think would represent the individual state's needs/beliefs? That way, it's not directly up to the people anyway. The problem with that being that it would be like "allowing a blind man to preside over a “trial of colors.” " like George Mason said.

Also- with the California/Wyoming comparison, wouldn't it work the opposite way too? Essentially, the votes are divided such that the states with fewer people (Wyoming)have more influence with their votes (their electors do) than densely populated states (California). This is supposed to be proportional and prevent candidates from spending all of their time campaigning in the larger states. This is said to "give the little guy a voice", meaning that the people should want to vote since they carry so much weight. Wouldn't this also sort of discourage the larger states from voting, since their vote counts less? and maybe someone would vote for their candidate for them? food for thought

Welllllll special interests

I think that the public has the right to know which lobbyists are stalking congress and about what. I don't think that they should be treated as individuals (right to privacy) because they aren't. Any sort of collaborative group has the power to change/do things, so it's important for Americans to be aware of what's going on. In the hand out it says that interest groups are not given a constitutional role to make or influence policy, but I don't believe that's true. If that group hires a lobbyist, then they most certainly can influence policy by pushing their group's ideals on those who make them.
There's a question in the handout that says, "should a local 4H group have the same voice and access to national policy makers as the National Dairy Association?" The answer to this is yes. If 4H group members feel that community bonding is more important than dairy related issues, why should only one of the two groups be able to present their views to people who have the power to change laws/policies?

Homo vs Holy Matrimony...

I held on to my belief that gays should be allowed to marry throughout the entire process. I felt that each time the opposing view was presented, I was pushed the other way. It's not like I've never thought about this issue, so I had a lot of ideas and stances in my head as I prepared to answer these questions, and I remained undeterred.
One of the arguments included this: "Yet such marriages are even more important for the proper socialization and overall well-being of children..." So this is saying that if a gay couple raises a child, the child is automatically at a disadvantage? I feel that this is such a hollow defense- there's no real backing to it. It can say that some form of ambiguous research was conducted, but who can really judge whether or not a person is up to par socially? I mean, if you are a well developed child with a functioning brain and body and you happen to be mean or annoying, does that make you less "acceptable"? And who's to say what causes this? Serial killers come from families too, and I'm more than willing to bet over 90% of them come from heterosexual couples. I don't believe that there is any study that could conclude that having two moms or two dads could actually have a negative effect on the well-being of a child. There's always the chance that kids at school could be narrow-minded, and maybe the child of the gay couple would be made fun of, but kids are cruel, they make fun of anything that's out of the ordinary, and it's certainly unfair and small minded to blame that on a non traditional couple that loves their child as much as any other parent would.

Another point was that, “Research clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage...” I think that this statement should be reworded to say "...a family headed by two parents..." Having two parents is always going to be better than one. It's an extra set of eyes to watch an infant, an extra pair of hands in the kitchen, an extra pair of legs to play hide and go seek with, and most importantly, another heart to give to a child. It doesn't matter who you are, if you grow up in a house with adults that love and nurture you to the best of their abilities, you will grow up to be a normal, well adjusted person. There are a few exceptions to the rule, but that usually lies in the hand of the kid. What if you don't know your biological parents like to estimated 50 million orphans in the world? Do you mean to tell me that it would be better to let these millions of kids live in an over-filled orphanage with (likely) not enough funding or supervision, than to let a loving gay couple rescue them? You can't be serious.

And I understand the religious part of this too...I'm Catholic and I know that my religion completely goes against what I'm saying, but I truly feel that in our ever changing world, we need not be ignorant! We have to embrace change...that's the ultimatum, there's no other choice. I may not want to necessarily want to see a gay couple making out, but I wouldn't want to see a hetero couple making either...so I guess it's pretty even.

Finally, "many consider marriage to be the bedrock of our society and to allow gay marriage is to allow that bedrock to crumble?" This, to me, is the most ridiculous argument yet. What about the approximated 55% of ALL marriages that fail? They don't say whether that's just gay or hetero couples does it? It's ALL marriages, but if 5 gay marriages fail, suddenly it justifies why NO gay couple should wed. If hetero couples are allowed to make a mistake like marrying the wrong person (some have remarried upwards of 3 times), why can't gay couples?

Who am i going to "vote" for...

Despite the fact that I'm torn between the two candidates, I think that I would vote for John McCain. I know that he's old, but I feel that he has the most experience with war-type scenarios, and the war in Iraq is one of, if not, the, biggest issue our country is dealing with. I keep hearing about how Obama has set some sort of time limit on the war, and that once x date happens, we're pulling out. I also hear him talking about how all we need to do is defeat Al-Qaeda. Okay, duh, yes that's what we need to do, that's what we've been trying to do for the past 8 years. I think that John McCain has what it takes to make informed decisions about the war and how to end it properly. Of course I want the war to end as soon as possible, but I'm afraid that Obama will give in to all the negative press that the war gets, and pull the Americans out too soon. This would make all the lives lost in vain, which is not something a mother of a 19 year-old dead son would want to hear.
As far as the economy goes, I'm not really sure that either candidate would know how to effectively fix the dilemma, so I'm not really concerned with choosing a candidate based off of that issue alone.
I like what Obama has to say about "cutting emissions" and other energy saving/gung-ho green solutions, as ambiguous as they may seem. Energy and environment are issues that are very important to me too, but I think that the war is higher on the list of priorities, therefore needs a man better qualified in deciding what the country should do.

Presidential Debate round 2

This was an interesting style of debate, with the candidates talking directly to the people asking the questions. On one hand, it added a deeply personal touch by having the candidates look the people in the eyes and tell them how they are going to fix the economy/ every other problem America faces right now. On the other hand, it was an opportunity for the candidates to bash each other in front of their potential supporters. I felt like it was a lot of, "well he said he was going to do this, and that sucks, but luckily there's still ME, who will fix EVERYTHING!!" (insert cheesy smile).
I didn't watch the whole debate because I didn't feel that it was necessary to understand what was going on. I'm starting to get tired of the campaign trail, so I'm very much looking forward to Novemember.

VP debaters

The biggest difference between the two for me was the way they spoke. Biden looked at the "discussion director" (I can't think of her actual title)and Palin looked directly into the camera. It felt like the difference between watching a conversation and being a part of one.
I also felt, in the very beginning, that Biden was sort of avoiding the issues on hand and acted as a huge flaming cheerleader for Obama...I guess that's what they are supposed to do at this sort of thing, but it was just..eh.
Sarah Palin: ALASKA, ALASKA, ALASKA!!! Wow- I've never heard one person turn absolutely every questions asked into an answer involving "the great energy producing state!" I really took notice of often she referred to the amazing and wonderful state of Alaska.

Overall, I liked Sarah better, I feel like she spoke very well and to the right audience. I liked the way she stuck to her guns on the gay marriage issue because I got the impression that Biden was actually FOR gay marriage...but after Palin said upfront that she didn't, but supported their rights, Biden said he agreed. He smelled a little fishy, while I knew that Palin said how she felt, not what other people may have wanted to hear.

Faith in Sarah has been restored after Tina Fey ruined her, at least for me.

Political Ads

"The Vets for Freedom ad, called "Skipped," says that Sen. Barack Obama voted against emergency funds for U.S troops, and an ad, named "One Heartbeat Away," from the nation's largest union of registered nurses, criticizes Sarah Palin." (www.usatoday.com)
These ads have a lot of emotion tied to them- the purpose of each one is designed to cut to the core of the average joe. The one with Obama was made by someone that is well aware that spreading the fact that he voted against the funds for troops, is going to severely piss a large amount of people off, making them (hopefully) vote for McCain. The ad featuring Palin has the same idea in mind. It seems like most ads are designed to make the opposing candidate look so bad that the people have to vote for the other, instead of highlighting their own good traits. Interesting...