An Election for All of Us

by Sarah Wisniewski

On November 6^th the electorate was tired of the same old rhetoric on Capital Hill; combined with an evolving nation and the ominous “Fiscal Cliff” looming in the distance, “change” was literally voted in to the most powerful seats in Washington. Party loyalty aside, diversity that reflects the new face of our nation, established after the 2010 census, was voted in to represent our evolving nation.

The new face of our evolving nation voted in on November 6^th includes the highest number of Asian-American congressional candidates ever elected, and Democratic wins boosted Hispanic ranks in the House with eight new seats. Also three openly gay members in the incoming class of House freshman were elected. The majority of our nation is no longer blinded by petty ignorance that has fettered the progress of our nation for so long. They instead are in desperate search for real action, for real progress.

On November 6^th those freshman congressional members with Tea Party affiliations found their legacy cut short because as Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Steve Israel put it, “(the electorate was) looking to elect people who were a little less ideological and more pragmatic.” One such Tea Party affiliate and recently ousted congressional member Nan Hayworth, a Republican representing NY-18, remarked that her constituents had said, “Nan, we know this isn’t you, but your party says things on the social front that we can’t agree with.” It is no longer a party line vote, the nation is voting in and will continue to vote in those that represent their best interests, and the best interests of the nation, not solely by whether the ticket wears a donkey on their lapel or an elephant.

The main issues in this past election were jobs, the “Fiscal Cliff,” and social issues. While some representatives seemed to have not progressed since the 1950’s, our nation certainly did. It voted for women’s rights and yes for equality.  Representative Sean Maloney, a Democrat representing NY-18, was voted in as one of the three openly gay members of the incoming freshman class, symbolizing the nations view on equality.  The younger generation that for so long had wondered and questioned the stalemate that exists on Capital Hill has taken the power given to them by the constitution by the figurative horns and have decided that is time to end a society that accepted the richest one percent having lower tax rates than their employees.  As retiring Rep. Charles Gonzales (D-Texas) put it, this was “truly a coming of age (for the country).”

On Suffrage

by Ernesto Renda

In a recent Brown University Daily Herald editorial, student Oliver Hudson put forward his criticisms of universal suffrage in the US. Citing capitalism and shared investments, he argues that voting rights and power should be allocated to those who pay taxes. A person who pays higher income tax will have a vote with more weight than one who pays less or none. If your jaw is dropping, then you are having the reaction that many Brown Daily Herald readers did in the days after this article's publication and its subsequent "going viral."

Although I think it is an absurd idea that shows Hudson's lack of understanding or compassion for the under-privileged in America, he forced me for 20 minutes to envision this alternate system of vote allocation. He proposes that, because a person pays more taxes to the government, that  person should have more of a say in what the government is (i.e. who the government is) In a way, Hudson tries to fuse capitalism with democracy into one ideal system for the "haves" and a nightmare for the "have-nots." He uses a corporation as an example. Shareholders buy their shares, and gain more influence based on their number of shares. What he proposes is that those who pay more in taxes will be "buying" more votes. 

The problem with this system, of course, is the problem that we already face. Wealth is not equally distributed, so neither is power. However, under our current system, people of all socio-economic classes are generally able to vote. This allows candidates to run and count on the support of a certain group (e.g. lower-class urban residents). With the stratification of wealth in the US, Hudson's weighted-suffrage plan would place large weights on the votes of the upper class, and most likely render useless the votes of those under the poverty line and the unemployed. Yes, it is an Atlas-Shrugged-way of looking at things, but it is also an opinion that is held by more than just this Brown student.

2012 Presidential Election and the Issues

by Paul Nemergut

The way people voted on November 6^th clearly shows which way this nation will be going in the next four years. The election was decided by women and minorities who both heavily voted for Obama. Obama received 93% of the African American vote, 71% of the Hispanic vote and 73% of the Asian vote. He clearly locked down the minority vote and it was clearly a deciding factor in this election. On top of that, he received 55% of the vote from women. A more interesting fact is that Romney won 59% of the vote from Whites which is the highest percentage a losing candidate has ever received. I think this is a good indicator of how much America’s demographics have changed in the last few years and how the issues of our country are shifting in order to cater to certain demographic needs. In this election, the key factors were immigration, jobs, and the economy.

Hispanic immigrants and Hispanics in general played a huge role in this election. In Obama’s first 4 years of office, he made it his goal to overhaul our healthcare system. He made it more affordable for the lower class to purchase healthcare and since most Hispanics are part of the lower class, this appealed to them. Obama was and is a strong supporter of the Dream Act which makes it easier for immigrants to become citizens in the United States. He was a big supporter of it during his first four years, which appealed to Hispanics, and now is almost “repaying” the Hispanics by trying to push it through Congress. 71% of the Hispanic vote is a huge number and Obama made sure he held onto their vote during his 4 years in office.

Obama and Romney constantly battled about how to create jobs in America. Romney was hoping for the sake of the election that the unemployment numbers would rise so he could use the fact every chance he got. It is also true though that no presidential candidate has been reelected with the unemployment rate above 8%. Right before the election, Obama was able to get it down to 7.9% (from 8.1%) which really helped his chances. Romney didn’t have much to work off of other than critiquing Obama’s last four years. Romney only told the people what he planned on doing in his 5 step plan which the people apparently didn’t buy.

A majority of the population agreed that the economy was an important topic in this election. After the recession in 2008, Obama had his work cut out for him. As long as the economy improved, he was golden. Along with an improving economy represented by a small growth in GDP, he was able to blame the Republicans for the recession. Romney didn’t have much to brag about in this area. All he offered was his 5 step plan to improving the economy and decreasing the unemployment rate. Again, people clearly didn’t trust his 5 step plan.

If you were planning on running for election next year, I would give you a few pieces of advice. Focus on minorities. Minorities make up the largest part of this country than ever before and their votes allowed Obama to win this election. Create as many jobs as possible in whatever office you reside in, because it will give you something to brag about in the presidential debates. Jobs and the economy are very important to this country and people will like to see unemployment numbers fall. And lastly create a national disaster (where no one gets hurt) and help fix it right before the election. Although Hurricane Sandy was not a huge deciding factor, it definitely helped Obama.

All Issues, all the Time: December 2012 prompt

As Congress wrestles with end-of year budget negotiations and newly elected members of the House and Senate prepare to take their seats next month, this month seems like a good time to think critically about the outcome of the November 2012 election.  In fact, you've been doing that in your analytical write-up of the competitive Congressional race you followed this fall.  Now it's time to take your analytical skills to the next level.

To that end, consider the lessons that elected officials (Democrats, Republicans, and Independents) should draw from the election.  What were the voters saying on November 6?  What are the issues most vital to the nation?  Why?  If you were advising the nation's leaders, what would you tell them?

When it is all said and done, political parties must take positions on ideas and policies.  So think of this question in terms of issues (jobs, immigration, social issues) and not political parties.  

November 2012 prompt

While we are in the post-Hurricane Sandy recovery process, now seems as good a time as any to consider the electoral consequences of the government's response to Hurricane Sandy.  At The New Yorker, Hendrik Hertzberg offers up some thoughts on this very issue.  Read his essay and then consider: does a disaster like Hurricane Sandy re-order the thoughts and priorities of American voters?  If so, which candidate benefits and why is this the case?

Voters: The Latest Scientific Breakthrough? I Think Not.

by Justin Paley

The micro-targeting of voters has become a phenomenon among politicians these days. Anyone out there who thinks there vote in meaningless, you’re wrong. Politicians are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to get you out to the voting booth as expressed in an article in the New Yorker by James Surowiecki. This aspect of politics has been especially prevalent in this election as the margin of victory is expected to be very slim. Both Romney and Obama are using data collected by their campaigns to convince certain people to vote for them by airing television ads and other digital attacks. One example of this in recent elections was the 2004 race between George W. Bush and John Kerry.  Kerry’s campaign concluded that golfers were more likely to vote for Bush then Kerry, so the Kerry campaign aired ads on the Golf Channel. I think this strategy is smart but has undermined the intellectuality of political campaigns and has taken it one step to far.

If George Washington or Thomas Jefferson saw what the candidates were doing in this election, they would be rolling over in their graves. The way politicians are campaigning these days really disgusts me. Yes, I do think that using data about voters and their tendencies is a smart idea, but the way it is being used is just one step to far for me. This presidential campaign is expected to be the most expensive ever, with spending expected to reach around one billion dollars. One thing that I found interesting is an NPR article we listened to in class a few days ago about battle ground spending. NPR concluded that candidates are spending about $1,000 per person in battle ground states. Are you kidding me? And what bothers me the most is that all of these ads on both sides are just saying bad things about the other candidate. This whole election has just taken it to far between it’s spending, attacks and also the fact that candidates switch their political views every other day to appeal to a different type of voter. This country was founded on strong beliefs and passions. These days, political candidates switch their views more times then we hear about big bird and binders!

This whole digital information age has been blown out of proportion. You would think that we’re finding the cure of some deadly disease with the amount of money that’s put into such tedious and specific research on voters. Political campaigns should be about the candidate. Not attacking the other one or switching your image every other day. I feel as though these days, politics is only about winning and not about staying true to what you really believe in. Yes, winning is an important part obviously, but you should not sacrifice your integrity in order to do so. And using all these micro-targeting strategies, spending billions of dollars on digital ads and telling the people what they want to hear even if it’s not what you believe does just that. It’s not about whose the best candidate anymore, it’s about who has the most money to spend and says the right thing at the right time.

October 2012 prompt: Micro-targeting Considered

A few weeks ago, the New Yorker published a piece by James Surowiecki about the campaign strategy of micro-targeting, using specific data to pinpoint likely supporters and persuading them to vote on election day.  What do you think of such a strategy?  Is it merely the latest version of "vote for me" appeals candidates have always made or have campaigns taken it one step too far?  Is this a sign of the digital information age being out of control or just modern campaigning?

Wishful Sinking

by Adarsh Balaji

Civic engagement undoubtedly plays a significant role in the growth of a democracy. A government by the people and for the people defines nations such as the United States at its core. However, Norman Ornstein has linked a faulty “success” to prosperity. 

The “land down under” seemingly brings ninety percent of its voters to the ballot box. Ornstein argues that civic responsibility has been instilled within each Australian citizen because they find the urge to vote for government officials. This scenario is a terrifying prospect in a land as prosperous and enhanced as the United States. Ornstein remains true when he speaks of the national conventions and the voting pandemonium that occurs between the top two candidates. One must remember though that Australia is and has been a constitutional monarchy. This consists of a monarchy and a bicameral parliament where only one aspect of government requires avid voting participation. The Australian government consists of several high ranked individuals elected into Congress to overlook the various departments. As such, it is imperative that a nation such as this puts in unregistered support to keep the government stable. In America, however, we have a solidified system of checks and balances where no one person has dominant control over the government. If we were to incorporate all the unregistered voters who do not vote due to personal preference and force them to put effort into a lost cause, we stimulate animosity within the nation. In addition, due to personal preferences the overall vote would be far more split whereas now the Republican and Democratic parties clearly exceed due to vigorous support and financial success. We would much rather have the sturdy American population voting for sound reasons instead of swing voters falling for political fodder and risking the stability of the democracy. Once again, Australia has a reigning monarchy whereas America has no fallback. This is not to say America needs a fallback because we have clearly shown our nationalism and dominance economically, fiscally, and socially. America also faces a much higher illegal immigrant crisis than does Australia or any other nation for that matter. What would we do when compulsory voting is enforced and one campaign clearly hopes to augment the status of illegal immigrants to naturalized citizens? Would that not unfairly aid that party simply because of an influx of numbers? This shows that many people in America choose not to vote simply because they are indifferent with the people in office and are more concerned with improving their own life. The government is instituted to aid that process but not to reap benefits unfairly from the hundreds of thousands who call America home. Clearly the United States has several issues to ameliorate; however, to force sovereignty is counterintuitive. One is not forced to practice religion by the book if one does not choose to, one does not have to start driving the day they are legally allowed to, one is not required to attend public school even if they pay property tax to support the school system. Simply put, America thrives on its leniency with living standards, but to tighten that grip with something as important as suffrage borders on government indecency. 

Penalty for Not Voting?

by Diana Zhao

     

As a leading role model of democracy among the nations, America is very protective towards people’s freedom and rights. Civic engagement is, with no doubt, a crucial factor in shaping the politics of the nation and spreading democracy. However, when civic engagement, in this case, voting, is forced upon citizens, and interferes with their freedom of choice, as demonstrated in Norman Ornstein’s article, The U.S. Should Require All Citizens to Vote, it might backfire and negatively affect the outcomes of election.

 Ornstein stands for mandatory attendance at the polls for registered voters and a small penalty for failure to show up unless voters write a letter of legitimate excuses, which is currently adopted by Australian voting system. But due to the differences in political structure, what works for one nation does not necessarily work for another. Who will sit in front of the mail box to read all the letters and determine the legitimacy? And who will pay for this, state government or federal government? In America, voting is an issue of state sovereignty, where states decides whether voting should take place in multiple days, or whether voting ID is required. Therefore, a set federal mandate on voting policies might incur undesirable disputes in the nation. Meanwhile, regarding voting as a civic right rather than an obligation, Americans are inculcated with the idea of protecting individual rights and mandatory voting is just unpractical in America, as Ornstein realizes himself. It’s a potential disturbance and threat to current political stability. Also, forced voting might end up with people voting for wrong reasons and casting random votes. This is not what we expect to happen. As a nation of democracy, we should encourage eligible citizens to use their rights properly to support the government.

However, I do agree with Ornstein’s proposal of voting incentives. Civic engagement in politics, in general, helps citizens know better of their government and current political situation to make the right choices. While Mega Millions lottery appeals to me on the first sight, it’s not the only solution. First, it might encourage gambling in some way by offering people lotteries as a reward for their participation in voting. Furthermore, people might be misled by the incentives and end up voting for wrong reasons.

When people register, they should not feel obligated in any way to show up and vote. Instead, the government and candidates have the responsibility to offer convenient information sessions or basic knowledge lectures to attract the voters. Incentive strategies to encourage voting could be considered, but must be used with caution.

Required Voting

Well-respected political scientist and Congressional scholar Norman Ornstein is of the mind that poor voter turnout in the United States has led to overly partisan primaries and general election candidates who don't represent the more moderated American point of view.  In a July 2012 essay at The Atlantic, he makes the argument that we should be required to vote.

What do you think of Ornstein's concerns?  Is required voting a potential solution to American partisan sniping?  Or is it a pipe-dream?