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.