Aftermath of the Election

Of course after any election there are going to be citizens upset with the outcome. However to be so dissatisfied with the results that you wish to pack up and leave the country itself, is something in it’s own. After the 2012 election seven states have successfully petitioned to secede from the United State of America.

In this dramatic uprising many conservative news headlines have ignored the whole spectrum and obscured the headlines. By mainly focusing on the amount of states that created a petition to leave the union, that being all of them, the headlines are a dramatic exaggeration. They have failed to take into factor that the majorities within these states oppose the secession  movement and that many of these states have not reached the signature threshold requirement for the petition to be responded to by the white house.

According to the government issued website “We the People” which focal purpose is to give the American people a voice within their government. A petition will get a review and response from the white house once a signature threshold is reached.  In order for a petition to be searchable on whitehouse.gov 30 signatures are required within 30 days of it’s creation and for it to be reviewed by the white house 25,000 signatures are required within 30 days of it’s creation (petitions.whitehouse.gov).

So how many states managed to accomplish this? Of the 50 petitions created, seven were successful in acquiring the 25,000 signatures. That of which being:  Louisiana, Florida, North Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, and Texas.

Fox known for being a more conservative news outlet had story called “WH ‘Secede’ Petitions Reach 675,000 Signatures, 50-State Participation”. This headline was sure to catch attention. Although 675,000 signatures may seem like a lot, when comparing to that to the population of the US in total, 675,000 is only 0.2% of the population (U.S. & World Population Clocks).  The fox news article neglected that only 7 states successfully reached the signature threshold and that the majority of the citizens within the states that were successful in completing their petition.

Contrarily the more liberal news post The Huffington Post with their article “Secession Poll: Majority Opposes Their State Seceding From The Union” shed some light on the subject with their poll that showed one of three things. The first being that a majority of people were not aware of the petitions and secondly that the majority of the 1000 US citizens polled didn’t feel the states should be allowed to secede from the union. Lastly and most interestingly the article pointed out that secession attempts are not anything new and showcased some past examples of secession attempts.

The last news outlet I looked at was BBC. I did this specifically to get an unbiased outlet compared to Huffington post, which is drastically left wing, and Fox which is oppositely right wing. The news article “US election: Unhappy Americans ask to secede from US” had a balance between the other two articles as it did touch on the major points in the two other articles. The first, which similarly to the fox article was that there is a large amount of American citizens unhappy with the outcome of the election and feel the United States government, is blatantly abusing American Rights. The second, which ties in to the Huffington post article, was that a majority of those wanting to succeed were republican. Whichever the viewpoint, the impact of any election is going to cause a stir within the dissatisfied and as an American citizen we are lucky enough to exercise our voice and opinion within the government as did these seven states. Although the probability of secession is unlikely the movement is noteworthy and an important symbol of our freedom of speech.

“U.S. & World Population Clocks.” U.S. & World Population Clocks. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Nov. 2012. <http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html&gt;.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/16/secession-poll_n_2147048.html#slide=307326

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20301477

http://nation.foxnews.com/2012-presidential-election/2012/11/14/wh-secede-petitions-reach-675000-signatures-50-state-participation

Greater Together: The Largest Grassroots Campaign in History

This past year, I have spent much of my free time, thus no longer free, volunteering for the Obama for America campaign. Standing on the other side of the election, I am inexpressibly happy to see that our efforts paid off.

This was a landmark year for presidential campaigns. The parties and candidates spent more than ever in history, but there were also other efforts that moved campaigns forward, and it seems that money is not the only factor in the elections. That said, the combined spending of both campaigns topped $1.1 Billion dollars. A staggering number, yes, but lets look at what else the Obama campaign did to secure that seat in the oval office.

Jim Messina, the president’s campaign manager called his work the “largest and most innovative grass-roots campaign in American political history.”

While this may seem like an arrogant statement, the results speak for themselves. The Obama campaign set up offices all over the nation. The way in which they were situated focused largely on demographics, that is, areas with a high concentration of young people, minorities, and other known supporters. The campaign office for south Denver was set up just down the street from DU.

I spent a lot of time at that office making phone calls as well as rendezvousing there after a long day of canvasing. What always amazed me, however, was that there was always someone there to pick up the slack. Yes we were short on people sometimes, but there was always someone willing to do the work, and happily I might add. Whether it was the fall fellows for the campaign, or a volunteer.

Another inspiring part of the campaign was the variety of people I saw working for the campaign. The volunteers would just as soon be DU students as retirees. I met one woman on a day of canvasing who was 83. She spoke to those at the office and said that this was the first election in which she would vote Democrat.

One tool that the campaign used was called surrogates. This refers to stars and celebrities that would come and speak at rallys, as Will.I.Am did on the debate day rally at DU. They woud also visit the offices and give much needed pep talks to the volunteers.

One such event was the Sunday before election day. Alexis Bledel, of the TV show Gilmore Girls, along with Brandon Routh of the 2006 Superman movie, visited the office. I was working at the time and, as trite as this might sound, she could not have some at a better time. It was the final stretch for us. Most of the volunteers there had been hard at work for months if not more than a year. We were worn down and tired. Ms. Bledel came into the office rather inauspiciously until she was announced. Everyone took a moment to put down their work and lend an ear. As is standard, they thanked us for our work and then Routh delved into a story of his childhood and why he was voting for the president. Although we had heard this from countless people, and even given the speil ourselves more times than we could count, this particular speech proved to be just what we needed. After they spoke, the stars took some time to socialize and take pictures with us. And then it was right back to work and we attacked the calls and canvasing with a new vigor that we had preciously lacked.

I think this is what ultimately led to the president’s victory. Not this event specifically, but the hundreds,even thousands like it that took place all across the nation. OFA simply related better to people. The personal connections made throughout the campaign, I think, ultimately defined what “grassroots” was for America. These small events no matter how seemingly inconsequential, won the election and it was amazing to b a part of it.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57541158/campaign-spending-tops-$1.7-

billion/http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/11/news/la-pn-obama-democrats-grassroots-campaign-20121011

Fox News and Secession

                It seems a small portion of Americans are taking that election a little too hard.  Since the results were announced, petitions from all 50 states have been filed on the White House’s We the People (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/) site, asking the president to allow them to peacefully secede from the Union.  Of the 69 filed petitions, Texas, Florida, Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, and North Carolina have accumulated the 25,000 signatures that require the petition to be answered by the White House.   In total, the petitions have gathered 675,000 signatures.

                This has led to a rather interesting situation for Fox News.  Being a right leaning news network that was clearly devastated over Mitt Romney’s loss, it wouldn’t be hard to imagine many of its pundits supporting this sentiment.  Yet conservatism has also traditionally included a fierce patriotism that wouldn’t lend itself well to a secessionist movement.  This tension was expressed by Texas Governor Rick Perry, whose office had this to say on the petition “Gov. Perry believes in the greatness of our Union and nothing should be done to change it. But he also shares the frustrations many Americans have with our federal government.”

                This seems to be the line that makes many conservatives uncomfortable, where they can lament the complete destruction of American values, yet value the vague ideal of America enough that leaving that seems unthinkable.  On November 14, Sean Hannity interviewed Daniel Miller, president of the Texas National Movement.  Hannity was clearly uncomfortable with the idea, asking Miller “Isn’t it important that we are the United States of America?  Do you feel a certain sense of obligation that we need to stay united?”  While Hannity agreed with Miller that the United States had lost many of its core values, he expressed belief that those dissatisfied needed to “work within the system.”  On same day on “The Five,” co-host Greg Gutfeld said “secession is silly.”  Megyn Kelly called the petitions “weird fallout from the presidential election.”  Even Glenn Beck called the trend “stupid,” though he seemed to criticize the idea of giving one’s personal details to the federal government while promoting secession more than the idea of secession itself.

                Fox News is about as right wing as you are going to get in the mainstream media, yet it seems none of the well-known pundits on that network seem to agree with this movement.  When you freak Glenn Beck out, you may want to reel it in a little…

 

 

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/

Rick Perry doesn’t support secession petition on White House website

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/11/14/hannity-and-drudge-give-credence-to-post-electi/191375

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/the-five/transcript/secede-union-lets-try-competition-instead

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1971846604001/individuals-from-all-states-file-petitions-to-secede-from-us/

How Mitt Romney Lost the 2012 Presidential Election

I followed three different valid sources and 4 different articles explaining why Romney lost the election. I first looked at the titles of each article. Two of the titles did happen to mention race as a determining factor for Romney losing the election. The titles consisted of the following: Why Mitt Romney Lost: Empathy, Mitt Romney’s Neglect of Black Americans Failed Him at the Polls, Conservatives Struggle to Explain how Mitt Romney lost 2012 Presidential Election, and Why Mitt Romney Lost: Winning Over The Angry White Male Was Not Enough. I choose these articles by simply clicking from the first page after entering “Why Mitt Romney Lost the Election” in the Google search engine.

The Huffington Post: Why Mitt Romney Lost: Empathy

This message completely evolved around the idea of Romney missing that sense of connection to majority of the voters. It gives results from surveys that show Obama having a more emotional connection and mutual understanding with the American voters. It bluntly gives examples of why voters feel as if Republicans having a drastic disconnect with immigrants, the gay and lesbian community, women, as well as those who depend on government assistance. They mentioned how Romney’s 47% comment also caused a drastic disconnect with a large portion of middle class voters. This article also allowed comments to be made at the bottom.

Atlanta Blackstar Tribune: Mitt Romney Lost: Winning Over the Angry White Male Was Not Enough

Presented, is almost the same kind of argument as the “empathy” article above. However the title is pretty forward and direct. Atlanta BlackStar tribune presented a case the Romney only appealed to the wealthier Caucasian voters. Therefore, the tribune does acknowledge that sense of disconnect and lack of empathy that Romney presented. But they support it with the truth of demographics. The facts the minorities are beginning to become majority and getting their votes in was what mattered in this election. The demographic argument is supported with the fact that Obama won over a few of the states that historically vote Republican.

The Washington Post: Mitt Romney’s Neglect of Black Americans Fails Him at the Polls

Going hand in hand with winning “angry white males” the Washington post seems to emphasis on the disconnect between Romney and the voters as well. The article reflects a bunch of statistics on the race and ethnicities a lot more than the other article. Their statistics supported their argument which the Atlanta tribune argued as well: demographics. They emphasis that he could not appeal to the diverse crowd which seems to be the same argument made in the previous articles just in different ways. Presented in the article was his “heavy outreach” to the minorities in America. Obama clearly made to effort or perhaps naturally made the connection with most of these voters. There are a lot of comments in this article expressing the Republicans lack of Black leadership in their party. It attacked the Republican Party for pretty much being racist and anti-diverse in a sense. This article provided comment boxes also.

Huff Post: Conservatives Struggles to Explain How Mitt Romney Lost 2012 Election

This article right off the bat also coincides with the idea that Romney lost due to his lack of empathy. It mentions women voters and losing that sense of connect with Romney as well as Latinos. This still presents the case of having some sort of disengagement with certain voting groups that may determine the election. It mentions how the Republicans are looking for someone to blame when. This article unlike the others, does present explanations from the Republican parties as to why they felt they had lost the election. Some of the reasons included the following: The media selectively reported Romney’s gaffes, fact checkers were biased, Hurricane Isaac hit the Tampa convention, Romney was too nice, Hurricane Sandy and Chris Christie get the blame, Obama won by suppressing vote, Romney wasn’t conservative enough, and the list continues. None of the other news sources provided any information on why the Republicans felt they had lost. This article also gave you the opportunity to make a comment.

 

The main idea these articles present just in different cases supports that Romney lost because Obama could relate more, he reached out the majority of Americans and understood what point they were at their in life and showed concern about bettering people’s situations. Race seemed to have been brought up in every one of the articles. However it is vaguely mentioned that the majority of his supporters happened to be Caucasian.  Maybe the fact the more minorities made the effort to make their votes actually count this time around and that’s what ultimately made the difference in addition to many other things.

 

Chiles , Nick. Why Mitt Romney Lost: Winning over the angry white male was not enough. Atlanta BlackStar , Web. <http://atlantablackstar.com/2012/11/07/how-romney-lost-winning-over-the-angry-white-male-was-not-enough/&gt;.

Conservatives Struggle to Explain how Mitt Romney Lost 2012 Presidential Election . Print. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/09/conservatives-mitt-romney-presidential-election_n_2099504.html&gt;.

Crystal , Wright. Mitt Romneys Neglect of Black Americans failed him at the polls . The Washington Post , Print. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/therootdc/post/mitt-romneys-neglect-of-black-americans-failed-him-at-the-polls/2012/11/07/05331e2e-28f1-11e2-96b6-8e6a7524553f_blog.html&gt;.

Yahsar , Ali . Why Mitt Romney Lost: Empathy . Huff Post , Web. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/yashar-hedayat/why-mitt-romney-lost

 

The Biology of Voting

The other day I came across a news article discussing the biology involved in the way we vote and what political party we affiliate with.  Being a psychology/biology major, I was instantly intrigued, and wanted to look more into this subject.  Some of the findings are actually pretty fascinating, and I promise to try my hardest not to get too “science-jargony” here…

http://manassaspark.patch.com/articles/the-psychology-of-your-vote-ballots-and-your-brain

This initial article was from a news site called the Manassas Park Patch, written by Dr. Michael Oberschneider who apparently writes a regular column.  Recent research using structural MRI’s and fMRI’s (which create maps of brain activity, whereas structural MRI’s use magnetic fields to create images of the structure of the brain, in case you were wondering) has discovered that there are consistent differences in specific parts of the brain among Liberals and Conservatives.  All you left-wingers out there are likely to have much more activity in a brain region known as the anterior cingulate cortex (or ACC), while those more on the conservative side probably have a larger amygdala.  So what exactly do these areas of the brain do?

First of all, the amygdala is the area of the brain associated with emotion regulation and acts of aggression.  It also processes feelings of fear, hunger, pity, anger, and sexual arousal; basically, it is the fight-or-flight response center.  These findings do nothing to rid Conservatives of the stereotypes of making decisions based on emotions, and being the gun-lovers of society (please don’t be offended by this if you are conservative; I’m not saying these are my views, they are just some of the things I commonly hear.  Same goes for you Liberals when I get to you in a bit…).  It could also explain right-wing tendencies to avoid anything that may cause a radical change; the enlarged amygdala heightens emotions and is more easily thrown into “survivor mode,” which may sound good but is actually incredibly stressful to the mind and body.  Interestingly enough, it has also been found that men tend to have a larger amygdala than women.  I couldn’t find consistent enough information to determine whether or not there are more males than females declared as Republicans, but I wouldn’t be surprised if this were true based on the findings I read about.

Now, on to the Liberals.  The ACC is associated primarily with error detection and various types of problem solving, and also plays a role in motivation and reward anticipation.  It is located in the frontal lobe of the brain, which is fairly unique to humans and is responsible for higher-order thinking that we don’t see in many other animals (i.e. understanding abstract ideas, critical problem solving, self-awareness, etc.).  Increased activity in this area could aid in explaining stereotypes that Liberals are more aware of environmental issues and more likely to want to see change in an area of society or government.  Unfortunately, I couldn’t find any gender-related differences in the ACC like there are in the amygdala, however women do tend to have a larger hippocampus than men.  The hippocampus is hugely important in the initial processing of information and then sending this input on to parts of the frontal cortex for higher processing, so perhaps there could be a connection here causing more women to align with the Democratic party.  This is just my own speculation however, I found no studies related to this hypothesis.

So, if you are a Republican or consider yourself to be more on the conservative side, I’m curious: do you notice the characteristics that are associated with an enlarged amygdala in yourself?  This may require being painfully honest with yourself (which I’m certainly not asking you to disclose) since some of these traits may come with a negative stigma attached or may be very personal, especially in the case of trends in sexual arousal…you can probably keep those revelations to yourself!  But in all seriousness, I would definitely be interested in a Republican’s opinions on this research, and I’d also be curious to see if more males affiliate with the conservatives.  On the flip side, I’d like to ask those who see themselves as liberal the same question: do you notice yourself analyzing problems or being hyperaware of errors, as would be expected of someone with a highly active ACC?

But What about people like me who are usually undecided voters and don’t really align with one party over another? Unfortunately, research in this area has not been as conclusive as it has for those who do have a distinct political affiliation.  However, There have been numerous twin studies examining this topic that have found that there is some sort of genetic component to being undecided or disinterested in voting and politics entirely.

Another interesting article I found (click here) provides a short quiz you can take that tells you whether your brain is closer to that of a Liberal or Conservative.

All in all, it appears our political affiliation isn’t under our control as much as we would like to think.  There is a good possibility that we are born destined to be a Democrat or Republican, and our vote isn’t so much up to us as it is up to our biological and neurological composition.  I think these findings are almost ground-breaking because they suggest that it essentially doesn’t matter what a candidate does or does not do; as long as they don’t completely mess up, we are pretty much already programmed to vote one way, and it would take a lot to make our brains function differently.  This research ultimately suggests that it is not a candidate’s platform or reputation that wins our votes, but the size of our amygdala or the activity in our ACC.  Apparently during this year’s election there were more voters with an active anterior cingulate cortex than those big-amygdala folks!

“Obama Won the Election Thanks to the Very Thing We Thought Would Sink Him: The Economy”

    The last year has been an interesting time for both President Obama and Governor Romney. They both have come into this election with one main tactic: the economy. Since President Obama was inaugurated the opinions of Americans have skewed and began to blame him for the falling economy. Others who are educated on the path of the United States, analyze the economy from 2000 to 2012.  We have been following a downward trend for the past 12 years, but after looking at the fine print there has been growth in the past four years. It is easy to place blame on the President. If McCain were president right now, he would be to blame for the current economy. In fact, the Atlantic is putting the blame on President George W. Bush. Yes, when President Clinton was finishing his term we had the technology boom. What people do not realize is in the ending months of his term the economy was starting a downward trend. Falling into the hands of President Bush, September 11 happened, and the slow downward spiral sped up which led us to our economy in 2004-2008 years. Politico stated that half of the voters chose Obama because they blamed the economy fall on President Bush. Some say they continue to see a small growth the Obama. Due to their party affiliations, this mentality might have compromised the Romney votes in the end. An article posted by Kelley Vlahos from Fox News stated, “And the economy was foremost on voters’ minds — according to early exit polling, 61 percent of voters in the battleground of Pennsylvania said it was the most important issue affecting their vote; in New Hampshire it was 59 percent; in hotly contested Ohio, 59 percent”. In addition to the Atlantic post stated, “Yes, he failed to find anything resembling common ground with the GOP in his last two years in office. But in that time, he’s still presided over 1.7% annual GDP expansion while creating about 150,000 jobs per month”. Comparing both of those statements leads me to believe that once Obama took over this “economic problem” and voters would rather him finish working on it until he can no longer hold a position.

President Obama has Hurricane Katrina, Colorado Wild Fires, Osama Bin Laden death, and Hurricane Sandy under his belt. In addition to those four major events, he has still maintained his plan to grow the economy. Nothing in this world can be achieved with a snap of two fingers. Same situation happened to President Bush. He was the president during one of the most catastrophic terrorist attacks next to Pearl Harbor. If both President Bush and Obama were not successful leaders during these events they would not have been reelected for a second term. The thing is, voters are more educated in the respect that, there are a lot of things we are not aware of as citizens. There are plenty of secrets, but they are kept that way to protect us and our nation. When you are in the middle of a war with the middle east and dealing with other countries, the current president has more intel on what is going on. Yes, a new candidate can be briefed, which does happen after a president has completed their eight year term.Terry Madonna who directs college polling in Pennslyvania stated, “I think voters did understand that Obama came in during challenging economic circumstances, and perhaps they don’t necessarily see that as an excuse, but Mitt Romney never sold himself as a man who understands or was in solidarity with the people most hurt from the downturn and economic crisis”.  Statements similar to this were quoted on Fox News website. This was a bit shocking to me because in previous years you went to Fox News for a strictly Republican opinion. However, this year they have shocked viewers and talked up the aspects of both parties.

Forbes posted articles on both candidates and their economic plans. Orignially they were also suspecting a hard election for President Obama and his economic policies. Most recently, Forbes has changed their position and began attacking the credibility of Romney’s economic advisors. John Tamny, an employee of Forbes claimed, “We’ll never know, but it seems Romney lost a lot of votes due to his inability or unwillingness to explain his tax plan”. Exactly. Reporting sites and blogs claimed the same thing. It is hard to put faith in a leader to rebuild the economy if there is no plan or it is not explained clearly. Romney had the economy to play on and if he had implemented more strategy and clarity he might have won this election.

In short, President Obama utilized the economy and natural disasters to in fact help his campaign. The results on Tuesdays election showed that predictions were wrong. Yes, the faith is invested in President Obama and his experience with the current economic issues was in his favor. Had Romney came out with a clear and concise plan, Obama would have had his work cut out for him.

Congratulations to our President and his reelection, lets make the next four years count.

Read more:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/07/analysis-slivers-hope-in-economic-recovery-helped-boost-obama/#ixzz2BYttKJOZ

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/2012/11/06/romneys-economic-advisers-cost-him-the-election-and-its-time-to-etch-a-sketch-erase-them/

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/11/obama-won-the-election-thanks-to-the-very-thing-we-thought-would-sink-him-the-economy/264911/

College Republicans vs. College Democrats

I had never been to a student debate before, but immediatly I was discouraged. I arrived about 5 minutes prior to the listed time, and aside from the speakers, I was the only one there. More people did arrive, but only about enough to fill the front-middle section of Davis auditorium. Now most likely, this had to do with the almost non-existant amount of advertising for the debate, (the only place it was mentioned was on tiny fliers distributed on Driscoll bridge; nothing on the Internert, no posters, etc.) but I couldn’t help but wonder if the DU student populace knew something I didn’t.

 

If this student debate was representative of those in the past, I can understand why attendence was so low.

This debate was, in a word, a complete mess. It started off with the moderator ensuring us that he was going to follow the style of Bob Schieffer more than Jim Lehrer. Sure enough, he barely said a word all evening, speaking only to warn the speakers of time limits. The format consisted of opening statements, followed by each side asking the other questions, then a closing statement, repeated for each of the three topics. While the speakers asking each other questions sounds good on paper, perhaps resulting in a more in depth discussion between the two sides, it just resulted in the speakers taking their talking points and inserting a question mark at the end.

 

The first topic was taxes. The problems started as soon as the Democrats opening statement, when the speaker quoted Stephen King: “Raise my f—ing taxes.” Now I know it know its just a student debate, but I do expect them to maintain some sense of professionalism. This completely turned me off, and I cannot fathom why the speaker thought that was a good idea.

I used to think that the candidates talked past each other too much, but compared to these student debaters, the presidential debates looked like thoughtful, rational discourse. When discussing taxes the Republicans used the terms “fair share” while the Democrats used language like “paying a little more.” While I appreciate the rhetorical advantages of both, they address two sets of values. One implies that things should be fair in the strictest numerical sense, while the other does not mention “fairness” at all. They are too different arguments with two different assumptions, and the speakers constantly repeating them did nothing to further the debate. Unfortunately, this was the substance of both their arguments.

Come the closing statements, it was the Republicans turn to be unprofessional. The speaker referred to the President as “Mr. Obama,” and called him a disgrace to the Democratic party. This came off as extremely disrespectful, and just made the Republicans look petty.

The other two topics, student employment and campaign finance, went on in much the same way. While none of the opening or closing statements matched the vitriol of the first, the candidates ccontinued to talk past each other and repeat the same things over and over. On student employment, I actually forgot what the topic was for a while, because the discussion ranged so far from the original topic one of the Democrats had to remind them what it was. During the discussion of campaign finance, at one point they had a small argument about who was supposed to be asking questions. It was highly disorganized, and gave me new appreciation for the standard models in presidential debates.

The highlight of the night for me was during the campaign finance, when one of the Republican speakers conceded the point to the Democrats. He actually had to let another of the speakers with more extreme views take over the argument. It was a rare moment, and I admired the Republican speaker for it.

If I had to declare a winner for this debate, it would probably be the Democrats. They generally had more coherent arguments, and they did make one of the Republicans concede an argument. However, in this case, it was a contest of who was less awful, and I felt both debate performances had room for improvement. A lot of room.

Mistakes in Voting…Not Always the Voter’s Fault

With the Presidential election now just right around the corner, it’s time to start really, seriously thinking about casting our vote.  For some, this decision may have been an easy one to make, but others (such as myself) remain undecided.  I vote by mail, which means that I have literally waited until the last moment possible to make my decision, and I still don’t know who to choose.  However, about two weeks ago I received by absentee ballot from the state of California…the problem is, I am now registered to vote in Colorado, and a few days after receiving my California ballot, I also received my Colorado ballot.  Does this mean I get to vote twice??  While I honestly was pretty tempted to do so, I realized that probably wouldn’t be my best decision, and I threw away the California ballot.  But this mistake got me wondering, what other critical mistakes are happening during the election when the public goes to cast their votes?

After digging around a bit, I found a few interesting articles about common voting mistakes…

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34222_162-57544329/texas-voter-purge-marked-by-mistakes-misidentifications/

This first article is all about how over 6,000 voters in Texas were deemed ineligible voters because they were supposedly dead…even though they were very much alive.  Apparently the state of Texas had been cross-referencing their voters with the Social Security’s death database, and thousands of voters who’s names happened to match those of a deceased person received letters asking if they were dead!  These votes were also thrown out of the election, requiring that voters prove they are actually alive in order to have their vote count.  I’m glad I at least received two ballots, rather than a letter asking me to verify that I am indeed still alive, but I’d say this is strike two for the people involved in running the election.

http://www.kake.com/news/headlines/Sedgwick-County-Deals-With-Ballot-Mistakes-176706171.html?ref=171

This next article was also about voting mistakes that were not voters’ fault.  A county in Kansas had apparently been stuffing envelopes addressed to one person with ballots meant for another.  People were receiving their ballots and starting to vote, then realizing it was someone else’s ballot!  This has happened to about 90 voters so far, and has required much effort to correct this error.  Voters apparently first started seeing this last Tuesday, October 30th, and it continued through Wednesday.  While the county has worked to correct the problem as quickly as possible, they were still only able to get people the correct ballots on Thursday, November 1st.  This means voters had about 24 hours to fill out their ballot and get it back in the mail in order for it to be counted, unless they wanted to go to the nearest polling site to drop it off, but this seems to negate the entire point of voting by mail.  At least both of my ballots had my name on them, but I would say this is strike three.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/11/01/1122641/ohios-ballot-woes-could-delay-election-results-for-weeks/?mobile=nc

This third article describes a computer error made in Ohio, causing thousands of perfectly viable ballots to be rejected for no apparent reason.  The county says this one error could delay election results for weeks, but, perhaps even more nerve-racking is the conspiracy theory that has developed from this.  Because the majority of the votes that were rejected were Democratic ballots, the citizens are now claiming that their votes were thrown out on purpose in order to favor Romney in a largely pro-Obama state.  Whether or not this theory is true is beside the point; what matters is that this is only one of many mistakes in the voting process in Ohio alone.

These articles are just a small sample of all the errors and mistakes that are happening right now, and every little mistake makes a huge difference in the results of the election.  While I have found many of these to be pretty comical errors, and have probably reflected that view in my writing about them, these are actually serious issues.  Obviously, counting the votes of millions of Americans is a difficult an overwhelming task, but it is critical that this process is efficient and accurate.  One would think that with our new technologies, these types of mistakes would be a thing of the past, but that is obviously not the case.  I’m not sure how to remedy these issues, but obviously there is still room for a significant amount of error in the current protocol.  While my fix was simple – throw out one of my ballots – other voters have encountered issues that have caused their vote to be disregarded or at least delayed.  I guess for now, we just have to take it upon ourselves to be aware of the mistakes that do happen, and to make sure all of our voting materials are correct…and make sure the government knows we are actually alive.

Strategist & Journalist: How the Media and the Parties Shape Political Message in Colorado

“Strategist & Journalist” was a seminar that I attended on the campus of the University of Denver. This seminar took place in the Lindsay auditorium in Sturm Hall, located on 2000 E. Asbury Ave. This event was free however you were required to register online ahead of time. About 80% of the auditorium was filled mostly with students but there were also many other people present. There was a panel of four professionals who seemed to have all known each other prior to the discussion. The panel included the following guest: Republican political consultant Dick Wadhams, Senior Partner Mike Melanson, Investigative reporter for the Denver Post Karen Crummy, and political reporter for KDVR FOX 31, Eli Stokols. The panelist discussed how the national media affects the interactions between campaigns and journalist, and they allow the chance for all of us to think independently about the content of our media, the distribution and the effects of it. They have brought to our attention how political messages in today’s politics (one panelist even arguing that this was the case in previous historical elections) are produced and late arbitrated by journalist.

The panel began with each member introducing themselves and giving thanks to the University for hosting this event as well the multiple individuals whom helped put this together. The first speak was Wadhams discussing how he is Denver native and growing up with both the Rocky Mountain News paper as well as the Denver post allowed him to feel very privileged to the kind of news sources he had access to (as most cities only have one main newspaper production). He connected his personal story to the Denver Post losing their competition and explaining how unfortunate it is for the people to only have access to one point of view on current events. But, what about the internet you may ask to yourself which was my response as I sat in the crowd. Well Wadhams acknowledge our access to internet and believes with the improvement of internet and its accessibility there is no necessity for journalist and news reports. No middle man is needed and campaigns and candidates can reach people directly with no unwanted spin on their information. I agree with Wadhams as did many of the other panelists, soon we won’t even have newspapers anymore.  Wadham strongly advocated for the right to use any amount of money in elections with no restrictions, obviously because this would be beneficial to the Republican Party.  Wadhams expressed that Mitt Romney’s performance on our campus allowed him to step up to Barak Obama and be a true competitor. “Media’s interpretation of an event can powerfully influence people’s views about politics.” –Spinning Debates: The Impact of the News Media Coverage of the Final 2004 Presidential Debate. This article supports the idea that there is definitely a “spin” or what they also refer to as an “instant analyses”. This can possibly turn out to be biased if a journalist is more supportive of a certain candidate and what information they choose to cover.

To my surprise Melanson agreed with using money as freedom of speech and eradicating all of the rules and restrictions on how campaign money is spent and how much can be spent.  He quickly moved on however to the relationship strategists have with journalist and how it may affect the campaign. He explains that just because you may work with a journalist who will help to promote the party doesn’t mean that it will always be the case. He does mention that sometimes having a good relationship with some of the journalist may allow you to put the party’s spin on the information presented. Working with journalist doesn’t always guarantee a win for the election. Melanson closes on the note by accepting that compared to the past the journalist relationship with the strategist is changing as they become more independent and true to their pieces and the truth.

Next Karen Crummy began to introduce herself her and occupation. She was far more lively than the other Melanson and Wadham. She made joking comments towards Wadham about how she may actually be one of the journalists he’s not so enthusiastic about; they laughed it off. She was far more forward and blunt about her role as a journalist and as she consistently tried to find a politically correct way to say things she simply didn’t. She gave notes and tips that those pursuing journalism should be well aware of and proceeded onto discussing how her relationship with people during an interview and outside of interviewing matters the most. These are the individuals that grant you validity in the piece you write. When you’re writing is honest and accurate you are for more respected as a journalist even if you are disliked. Her key points were how your sources were important, loyalty to your story will earn you respected, and healthy relationships can create good trust.

Stokols gave us a small talk on who he is discussing his background with the audience. Coming from California he was granted the opportunity to work for Fox News. Stokols described an event were being a journalist can sometimes be difficult. People think you are going to be biased and favor a certain party over the other. Campaigns are constantly trying to control the messages which make it difficult to get a sense of rawness and honesty from the campaigns when everything is rehearsed.

A Q&A was open after the discussion from the panel and individuals from the audience got to choose the questions asked. In the Q&A the effects of negative campaigning were addressed, micro targeting from the campaigns was elaborated on by Melanson, and Crummys question to the panel was yet the most interesting. The strategists were asked if they were ever presented with unpleasant information about their candidates they had not known about. Luckily the answers were no. Back and forth discussion between the crowd and the panel went on as it turned out to be a very informative seminar.

Get-Out-The-Vote Efforts

Get out the vote (GOTV) is a slogan that many different organizations and political parties are using to encourage and motivate people to go and cast their vote. This slogan has been created to address the issue of people not making the effort to vote or not taking advantage of early voting. Organizations such as Rock the Vote and many other organizations have been launching GOTV effort focusing on the people in America to go vote. This slogan is shared by both parties and is very bipartisan.

Each party have made efforts to focus on early voting and have participated in these GOTV efforts hoping that the voter turnouts will be in favor of their party.  The Get Out and Vote effort generally include activities that include contacting known supporters that may have an inactive voting status, telephoning, canvassing areas where there may be people who are unlikely to vote, and also there has been transportation provided in areas to take voters to and from the polling stations. The Get Out and Vote efforts help to increase the percentage of the population that participates in voting, but also early voting. GOTV can possibly persuade voters decisions with efforts to make literature drop offs before the election.  The GOTV can also be very beneficial when it comes to determining the victory of each candidate when the race is expected to be neck and neck.

Below is a link from the Democratic Party that is persuading voters to get out and vote specifically for the Democratic Party I can clearly see how media such as this video can persuade voters who may be undecided. As the video plays there are clips decimating the Republicans party including them cutting education funds, the restrictions they plan to place on women’s health care , killing civil union bills,

MSNBC coverage:

For Romney and Obama, Early Voting Key Campaign Focus:

In President Barack Obama’s speech that he gave at the University Ohio during a rally, he couldn’t stress enough that those supporters have the opportunity to go and vote now and should proudly make the effort to do so. “The good news is you can vote in Ohio right now” says President Obama in hopes to continue to build his lead over Mitt Romney and the Republican Party. Each party shares a different focus on who they are trying to reach. President Obama seems to be reaching out to people that may support his plan for America but may be unlikely to vote whereas Romney tends to be focusing on those undecided voters.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/21/romney-gop-expect-much-stronger-get-out-vote-effor/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS:

The Republican Party has changed their tactics for reaching out to voters. They have gone from phone calls to hitting the pavements and ringing doorbells. This has been a major impact from the 2008 election. They have reached “25 times as many voters’ doors.” Republican Party chairman Bob Bennet made a statement emphasizing the importance of early voting and how this has climbed to the top priorities in the Republicans Party Agendas.  Although the Democrats may have the advantage still with getting people to do early voting, the republicans have made a drastic difference compared to the 2008 election and this seems to have helped the Republican Party.

The Get Out The Vote effort seems to be benefiting both parties and increasing early voting. As we all know this may be a close race so we will depend on effort as such to really make the difference. There seems to be equal coverage on the media in concern to the GOTV efforts. Considering the republicans have made it a priority like the democrats, it may be difficult to rely on the Get Out The Vote efforts to help determine which candidate will win the election.