You've heard the saying: "All politics are local?" I have often wondered about this issue, but recently, I have been thinking about my taxes burden, my house, where I live, and the laws that are in place here. We get very focused on the national elections when we choose our president, but what really matters is in our local elections and the choices of judges. The judges are the ones who interpret the constitution.
I have been a bit frustrated about how we learn the competence of the judges. I reviewed one of our voting information books, and the review of the judges was based on lawyers interpretation of whether or not the judge came prepared to court, whether or not they were competent, etc. It's not a discussion at all about their values, their judgments, etc. I want to know how the judges rule on certain cases. Are they likely to view the constitution as a "dead" document where we are to follow it by the letter of the law? Or, are we more likely to view it "living, breathing" document that is adjustable by circumstance and by the "zeitgeist?"
There's a very informative discussion on yahoo about the electoral college if you are interested:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-romney-could-tie-electoral-college-just-explain-194537108.html#more-id
I also find this frustrating. The review of judges need to valuable information linked to how a judge is ruling and his credentials. I do not feel that this is the best way to review a judge based on punctuality, I would like to think that there would be a review based on ability and mastery of the law and ruling, in which a judge would have experience to judge cases based on our constitution. However, my experience in the courtroom seems that there tends to be fluctuation in ruling which I am sure, occurs from judge to judge based on perspectives. In my own opinion, it looks like we are still using the constitution as a guideline for judgment and laws; on the other hand it seems there is flexibility within the laws that provide the “living document” policy so there is room for adjusting judgment according to how the case is perceived. However, there are so many things that are taken into consideration that I do not think there can be a concrete judgment across the board because each case that is similar also has its own unique characteristics, for example if the person involved is determined to have a mental illness, there would be more flexibility for that individual. At what point do we determine how much flexibility or living document policy effect judgment rather than the constitution?
ReplyDeleteI read the article you posted about the Electoral College, and I couldn't believe my lack of knowledge on the subject. I knew there was an Electoral College, but I didn't know that they voted for us.
ReplyDeleteI don't like how most states are "winner take all." I guess for me, it's like saying if you voted for the unpopular candidate your vote doesn't matter, because the whole state is going to stand behind the other candidate.
At the end of the article it asked this question: "Do you think the Electoral College is out dated, or should the U.S. keep it?"
I don't think the Electoral College is necessarily outdated, but I would like you see the system tweaked in such a way, that would take into account more people's opinions on who should be elected versus just the majority.
I agree, Kellie. I've heard the term "electoral vote" before, but I had no idea what that meant. I'm not sure what I think about this, however. I think it might make deciding the winner at the national level a little easier, since they just have to count up the votes out of 538 and not the millions of individual votes in the entire country, but at the same time I feel like it lessens the individual impact (even though I logically realize that each vote is still heard, just not in the way I believed it was). I like that Maine and Nebraska divide their electoral votes based on individual votes, because then I feel like the individual influence can still be felt at the national level.
ReplyDeleteEven though I learned about the electoral vote in my government class, it is still a little confusing. The clip helped to clarify a couple of points that I had forgotten. What it did make me remember is how important it is for everyone to get out and research the candidates and then cast their vote. We need to let our voices be heard,so that the electoral votes are electing the president that we the people want. You cant get the president you want elected unless you get involved and vote. As far as the splitting of votes, that is still confusing to me and I would like to learn more about how Maine and Nebraska do this, as well as why they are the only two states that do this.
ReplyDeleteI think that the electoral vote needs adjusting like most of the other articles in our government, we will get into that later. However, I do not like the electoral vote system in todays modern world because I feel like we are becoming a society where politics are bought. Last election there were two electral voters who pubically said they would not vote for a candidate even if the people voted for him. This makes no sense because just like the winner take all it is flawed, this is a reason that the independent party will never rise to the power of other parties unless they tie themselves to one wing or the other like the tea party.
ReplyDeleteI thought the same thing about how the electoral vote prevents the independent candidates from getting into the arena. It's frustrating already, and even more so with the idea that some electoral voters might not even do what they're supposed to do to make the system work.
DeleteIn regards to your first point about local politics being more important to each person. I see postings about how Obama is failing because gas prices are high, or heard that W. Bush was failing because he alone was responsible for the aftermath of Katrina when in fact that these problems seldom have anything at all to do with the direct resolve of the President.
ReplyDeleteLocally Mia Love is running against current and Democratic Matheson and they have focused on how they feel that he is ruining the country because he sided with Obama on perceived failed stimulus'. On the other hand Matheson's camp is focusing on the fact that locally in Mia Love's city in Utah she has raised property taxes 4 times in the last 3 years. Now I know that both items will impact me but I can't help but think how my property taxs being raised would effect me faster and harder than somethings on the national level.
Well, first I have to say that I have no idea who "Mia Love" is, so I Googled her. I found out that she is the mayor of Saratoga Springs. I also learned that she is against "Obamacare" and how it is the largest tax increase in history. I read how Matheson says that she published a fiscal plan that is to eliminate all state and local law enforcement grants, which puts the citizens in danger. He also said that because she cut the police budget that the crime rate in Saratoga Springs rose by 400 percent. I am amazed that I did not know that such things are happening here in my own state. I didn't read anything about the property taxes, but having the crime rate go up 400 percent does worry me - this is something that will definitely affect outreaching towns and cities.
DeleteInteresting! I am curious whether or not Matheson's accusations of 400 percent increase in crime rate is true? Where are his sources? What is Mia Love's fiscal plan? Which of the two candidates do you trust more to tell the truth? Is there a way to find out which of the charges they lodge against each other are true or false?
DeleteThese are some of the questions I hope you start to consider. I LOVE your "check up" on the candidates.
s
I double checked the crime statistics in Saratoga Springs...it's interesting. Here's a website that has compiled the statistics:
Deletehttp://www.saratogaspringscity.com/departments/publicsafety/police/crimestats.php
Saratoga Springs Police Department
DeleteYearly Comparisons
Year Totals: 2009 =5139, 2010= 5489, 2011 = 5107
When I looked up the site you posted, it looks like crime actually went down (above totals) - interesting. I am doing some more checking on this and will post more later.
I had the chance to watch the video clip this morning; it really helps to clarify how the votes count in the elections. It still seems somewhat confusing but I did learn more than I knew. It really does show how important it is to vote and really determine who you feel deserves your vote. It is interesting to me that 2 states split their votes; I feel this allows voters to have more control vs. the majority vote. I do not believe the Electoral College is outdated, but there could be improvements to make the system better such as correcting the winner take all, Therefore I do like the idea that it is possible for states to split their votes, I am not sure why more states don't participate in splitting their votes like Nebraska and Maine. To me it would be interesting to see how these to states came to the decision to split votes and learn more about the benefits and disadvantages.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed the site you directed us to explaining the electoral votes. This has me really excited for the election coming up. It made me curious to see the different amounts of electoral votes that each state has, so I found a site that shows all of the electoral votes amounts. I found it amazing that California is remaining unchanged for this 2012 vote even though their popularity jumped over 3 million people (10%). Utah gets to add +1 to the electoral votes to makes us be worth 6 electoral votes. This is because our population gained over 20%, but only adds up to be just above 500,000 people. Can't wait to watch the votes go in. Here is the site http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepoliticalsystem/a/2012-Electoral-Votes-By-State.htm
ReplyDelete