http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1878814,00.html
This story address several of the topics covered in this weeks readings. Funding, partisanship, other topics are coming to the forefront as Schwarzenegger's time in office runs out. The story does a good job of covering each candidate, or potential candidate in what I found to be there rawest form. I am waiting to see what the "fat cats" will do with there money in this election.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Election rules and Factions
Over the years the rules of politics have changed. This is due to changes in many areas. New technologies, immigration, and world affairs are just a few of the changes on the political landscape. I am not sure if the consequences of these changes were intended or not, but some of these changes have made things easier for voters. I believe that this is a great outcome. Now we are able to readily view information about candidates, (Hetherington and Keefe, Ch2), and we are able to "weed out" candidates through primaries. This gives the candidates more exposure to speak about his or her platforms and beliefs so long as the "horse race" is kept under control. (Hetherington and Keefe, ch3, pg 96) This also gives people a chance to form alliances or groups that have a common interest, or a faction. I do not believe that this was an intended consequence as they do may make things a bit more strenuous for candidates, especially at a higher level due to many different views and ideas, but it has helped the people to be heard.
New rules in regrades to primary elections and the supreme court outlawing blanket primaries are also changing the political scene. Primaries are becoming more candidate based at local levels over party based and are increasing partisanship and factionalism. The problem that we are now facing is that primaries are not doing what they were meant to do, make politics more competitive. (Hetherington and Keefe, ch 3 pg 75) It seems that if a candidate does not think that they have the ability to win they pull out of the race and the opposition wins by default. Normally the opposition is the parties selection. This is not what I had in mind for improvement. This seems that the party, weather through caucus or another means of choosing there candidates, is still controlling who we are "pushing through" to the next round so to say, and voters with a less popular cause seem to be forgotten because they can be.
Now this is not always true as we most recently saw with the election of Barack Obama as president. Hilary Clinton was the supposed inevitable choice for Democrats. Due to primaries this was not the case. (Dodge a bullet there. :-) In this instance primaries did there job and let the people decide who they wanted to be on the ballot.
There is always controversy before, during, and after any election. These arguments often include funding. Was there soft money being thrown around, was all of the money taken in accounted for, and so an and so forth. The laws put on place to regulate the money being taken in by candidates and parties have done a great job of leveling the playing field. This, however, is not enough. The "Fat cats" are now using there money else where. "527" groups are a great investment for a wealthy person that has there own agenda. They are able to put advertisements out there that will sway voters in the direction that they want and need so badly to fulfill there goals. I understand the idea of free speech, but this is a bit more then that. Is everything that that they are saying truthful? Are they putting a twist on things to shine a certain light on things? This is taking the attention off of the candidates records and issues and making the election all about competition. (Hetherington and Keefe, ch3 , pg 96.)
I believe that this may have a negative consequence on partisanship. There may be an increase in membership in parties, but I do not feel that it is for the appropriate reasons. If people are making there decisions about who to vote for and what agenda matters to them based on these advertisements and propaganda we have made no progress. It has been shown that most Americans are not going out and doing their own research, but that they are making their decisions based on the propaganda, (This is why we still need the electoral college.)
Addressing the question. "Do efforts to reform elections through primaries and the regulations of money in elections work at a cross-purpose?" I believe that they do. Both of these reforms were made to make the election process more fair, and in my opinion to involve the voter more. It would seem that they are both working towards the same goals but addressing the problems on two different ends. I believe that their goals are slowly being met, (look at the recent election.) Factions can not be purged as people will always try to find other with the same agenda and push for what they want. People that are more ambitious will see what they want to happen become a reality. It is a part of the American dream. This has been apart of the American identity since the beginning of our nation and should be.
New rules in regrades to primary elections and the supreme court outlawing blanket primaries are also changing the political scene. Primaries are becoming more candidate based at local levels over party based and are increasing partisanship and factionalism. The problem that we are now facing is that primaries are not doing what they were meant to do, make politics more competitive. (Hetherington and Keefe, ch 3 pg 75) It seems that if a candidate does not think that they have the ability to win they pull out of the race and the opposition wins by default. Normally the opposition is the parties selection. This is not what I had in mind for improvement. This seems that the party, weather through caucus or another means of choosing there candidates, is still controlling who we are "pushing through" to the next round so to say, and voters with a less popular cause seem to be forgotten because they can be.
Now this is not always true as we most recently saw with the election of Barack Obama as president. Hilary Clinton was the supposed inevitable choice for Democrats. Due to primaries this was not the case. (Dodge a bullet there. :-) In this instance primaries did there job and let the people decide who they wanted to be on the ballot.
There is always controversy before, during, and after any election. These arguments often include funding. Was there soft money being thrown around, was all of the money taken in accounted for, and so an and so forth. The laws put on place to regulate the money being taken in by candidates and parties have done a great job of leveling the playing field. This, however, is not enough. The "Fat cats" are now using there money else where. "527" groups are a great investment for a wealthy person that has there own agenda. They are able to put advertisements out there that will sway voters in the direction that they want and need so badly to fulfill there goals. I understand the idea of free speech, but this is a bit more then that. Is everything that that they are saying truthful? Are they putting a twist on things to shine a certain light on things? This is taking the attention off of the candidates records and issues and making the election all about competition. (Hetherington and Keefe, ch3 , pg 96.)
I believe that this may have a negative consequence on partisanship. There may be an increase in membership in parties, but I do not feel that it is for the appropriate reasons. If people are making there decisions about who to vote for and what agenda matters to them based on these advertisements and propaganda we have made no progress. It has been shown that most Americans are not going out and doing their own research, but that they are making their decisions based on the propaganda, (This is why we still need the electoral college.)
Addressing the question. "Do efforts to reform elections through primaries and the regulations of money in elections work at a cross-purpose?" I believe that they do. Both of these reforms were made to make the election process more fair, and in my opinion to involve the voter more. It would seem that they are both working towards the same goals but addressing the problems on two different ends. I believe that their goals are slowly being met, (look at the recent election.) Factions can not be purged as people will always try to find other with the same agenda and push for what they want. People that are more ambitious will see what they want to happen become a reality. It is a part of the American dream. This has been apart of the American identity since the beginning of our nation and should be.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
