Responsible Choice Party

Our group created the Responsible Choice Party "mobilizing America towards financial responsibility." We attempted to create a party from the ashes of the Republicans. Our focus was on financial responsibility, as a result our platform advocated privatizing social security and setting up a prescription drug program for seniors. We also reversed the current Republican party's stance on the war, we felt that in order to keep taxes low it would be necessary for the U.S. to pull out of Iraq. We wanted to remain conscious of moral issues; however, we chose to avoid discussing abortion, keeping responses to any questions on the matter vague. We thought it would be best to pawn off the gay marriage debate on someone else so we decided that who can and cannot marry would remain a state issue. We also chose to avoid issues involving the environment because environmental reforms cost money. We decided to target two key demographics the elderly, and the wealthy. These two groups tend to vote in larger proportions than other demographic groups, so instead of mobilizing groups that don't vote we are just appealing to the interests of those that do vote. Our key target areas are Florida, Arizona, Texas and the South in general. Arnold Schwarzenegger will be a key member of our party allowing us to get California. James Sensenbrenner will be our national committee chair, and Jeb Bush will be our presidential candidate. Other key members will include Tom Kruse, (not that Tom Cruise), of Hoveround fame, Alan Greenspan, and Betty White, from the Golden Girls. Walmart will also be closely tied to the party. I do not feel that our party will be successful. Although we will gain voters by ending the war in Iraq we will lose a substantial voting block by ending social security. The elderly are one of our target groups and the prescription drug program was designed to attract their vote, however, by privatizing social security we will also drive many seniors away from the party. I would change our party by privatizing social security for people who have not recieved benefits yet and begin a limited prescription drug program for those who have access to social security. Hopefully, by transitioning more smoothly like this we would attract more voters. I would have also addressed environmental issues. The environment is increasingly becoming a hot topic in politics and by avoiding the issue the Responsible Party is setting itself up for accusations of dishonesty.

The Need for Campaign Finance Reform

I few weeks ago I blogged about the finances of the current presidential candidates. The amount of money that each candidate has at their disposal is tremendous. At this point anyone who is not independently wealthy, or does not have the resources in place to raise millions of dollars is essentially out of the running. Campaign finance reform is necessary to correct this disparity. I feel there should be caps on the amount of money that campaigns are able to spend, both in the primary season and in the general election, and these caps should extend to most interest groups trying to promote the agenda of one party over the other. At this point this kind of reform would be difficult to accomplish do to the Supreme Court ruling involving soft money; but regardless of the use of certain magic words any advertisement advocating a certain position can potentially give an advantage to one candidate over another. Ideally my perfect campaign finance reform would also involve regulations on the broadcast media for the amount they could charge candidates running for public office. I would limit the amount of money the media could charge campaigns to the cost of printing or broadcasting a specific ad, without profit to the owners. My ideas in this blog are idealistic; however, I do feel some change in campaign financing is necessary to ensure that the United States can remain a country by the people, for the people.

Banning Florida

Today Florida will officially announce that they are not moving their Democratic primary in order to comply with DNC rules. DNC rules only allow Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina to hold their primaries before February, 5th. Florida is holding their primary on January, 29th. As a result Florida will lose all 210 delegates to the Democratic National Convention and the candidates have agreed to not campaign there. I think it is a poor move on the part of the Democratic party to snub Florida; a swing state that was the deciding factor in the 2000 Presidential election. The Florida primary date also violates RNC rules, however; the penalties involved are less harsh, and Republican candidates are still campaigning in the state. This could hurt the Democratic party when it comes time for the general election. With less exposure in the state Democratic candidates could risk losing independents and moderates. Could this be a strategic move on the part of the Republican controlled legislature that set the new primary date? Whether or not the new date was an intentional maneuver it is sure to alienate Democrats who had no say in the primary date but who are being punished by the DNC regardless.

Wealth and Presidential Candidates

At the end of this past March several Presidential hopefuls submitted their fundraising totals to the Federal Election Commission. I was shocked at the amount of money that had already been raised nearly two years before the new President would be inaugurated. The top three candidates on either side of the aisle had raised over 12 million dollars each. In total the Democratic party had raised over $78 million and Republicans over $53 million. I will probably never see that much money in my life. It made me wonder who really are the Presidential candidates, and can any of them relate to me, with all my college debt, will they really be able to represent my interests. In May the candidates were required to report their finances to the FEC. Most of the candidates, Democrats and Republicans, were millionaires and all of them made more than the average American. It is understandable why the candidates, in the first fundraising quarter, are already pulling in such large sums; in a race this close money may buy you the extra thousand votes you need to win. However; it has limited those who have a legitimate chance of winning the party nomination to those who have the most money, not necessarily the best candidate for the job. The glossy ad we saw in class that Mitt Romney is pushing on Florida and South Carolina is a good example of what a lot of money can buy. $21 million plus, can buy a whole lot of positive advertising. Candidates with less money to spend have a harder time getting their names out. The Mitt Romney commercial was also a lot more visually appealing than it was substantive, in fact the only thing that sticks in my mind is the picture of him running, not his policy positions. But in the era of candidate centered campaigns a positive image, such as Romney running, appeals to voters, who may not care what his stance on gun control, or other issues are. This idea of appealing to voters and being seen Presidential has become the key to winning the 2008 election. This election will not be won on policy, but instead will be won on charisma.

What is a Party?

A party is a group of people with similar ideological views that try to promote issues consistent with those views. In the United States we have a two party system; two large parties and several small parties. In other democracies around the world there are multiparty systems where several small parties vie for more votes than the other parties. The benefit of our two party system over other multiparty systems is that when a candidate representing one party is elected over half of the people who voted chose that candidate. In two party systems one party needs to gain a majority of votes over the other party in order to win an election. In multiparty systems it is possible for less than half of the people voting to elect their candidate; because, it is not necessary to gain a majority of votes. The French presidential election of 2007 is a good example of how multiparty systems handle this issue. There were two rounds of voting. In the first round of voting Nicolas Sarkozy won with 31% of the vote allowing him to move on to the second round of elections. Right behind him with 26% of the vote Segolene Royal also moved to the second round of elections. Sarkozy won the second election with over half the votes. In some ways this system could be seen as beneficial because it allows for a more diverse assortment of parties. Each party can be more specific about its views and people are more likely to find a party to identify with. In two party systems like ours, politics are split into liberal and conservative, democrat and republican; and although someone may agree with some conservative policies they may also have liberal viewpoints. Such polarity makes it difficult for a candidate to please everyone in their party.