2012 Election ~ Low Voter Turn out Part 1

     Samuel Adams once said, “Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual – or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country.” American people have the right to decide who will represent them and how they want to be represented. Americans have one of the greatest rights any free people can have; the right to vote. Americans have the great privilege to live in a free society and voting is the right that makes them free. America’s troops have fought wars so that others may be free. America has survived liberation movements, such as in 1870 when blacks gained the right to vote and in 1920 when women gained the vote. America is the standard for democracies all around the world. So, how disheartening it is when 40% of its own population doesn’t vote. They do not exercise their right to be heard in their own government. Americans have taken for granted too much the right to vote. This article will examine the reasons why people don’t vote, what effects this has on democracy, and what steps can be taken to remedy this problem.

     To begin, one must identify why people do not vote in elections. One cause of low voter turnout is the difficult and confusing registration process. Voter registration places the burden on the voter. More than one third of the problems reported to Election Protection in 2008 were a result of our antiquated voter registration system. Often voters are unaware that if they change addresses they must re-register. Many voters do not know this is required or forget to re-register. The results of the 2010 census showed this example to be true. Under their reasons for not registering; 47% reported that they were not interested in the election or were not involved in politics, 17% reported that they did not meet the registration deadlines, 6% said they could not because of permanent illness or disability, 5% gave the excuse of not knowing where or how to register, 4% indicated their vote would not count, and finally 4% reported they did not meet residency requirements.

     Furthermore, Election Day itself contributes to low voter turnout. Elections are held on Tuesdays, when most people work. Companies can disenfranchise people by simply not giving them time off to get to the polling station. In virtually every other country, Election Day is a national holiday, and voter participation rates are higher. By increasing access to the polls, it will encourage participation in democracy. This is a simple goal that should be easy to get through Congress. It requires only one small change: adding Election Day to the list of federal holidays in section 6103 of Title 5 of the U.S. Code. It can be passed in time for our next election in November 2012. While the International Day for Preventing the Exploitation of the Environment in War and Armed Conflict is a November holiday, Election Day isn’t. The California Voter Foundation (CVF) has released the results of a statewide survey on the attitudes of infrequent voters and citizens eligible to vote but not registered. The survey found that 28% of infrequent voters and 23% of those unregistered said they do not vote or do not register to vote because they are too busy.

     Additionally, a disgust of politics in general has the biggest effect on low voter turnout. In 1960, 60% of the nation’s television households had their sets on and tuned to the October presidential debates. In 2000, fewer than 30% were tuned in. However, Americans have come to dislike nearly everything about modern campaigns. The new style has brought out aspects of politics that were once largely out of sight. Ambition, manipulation, and deception have become as prominent as issues of policy and leadership. Elections are supposed to energize the electorate. They are not supposed to ruin one’s appetite, but that’s the best way to understand much of what Americans now see during a campaign and why they don’t have much taste for it. A poll asking the top three reasons why people don’t vote for candidates deduced this; the candidates do not clearly explain why they should represent their constituents in office, they have a lack of openness and candor, and they do not understand the needs of the people in their district. The numbers of voters show the effect of this story. The 2010 census provided new numbers on how many people voted in the 2008 election. The census questions determined; 45.5% of people voted, 38.5% did not vote, and 16% chose not to answer the question.

     American’s are either insulted by the way politics are conducted in this country or are completely oblivious. Why does this all matter to begin with. So what if 40% of the nation doesn’t vote, it seems to be working out alright now? Well, there are some serious issues that arise when almost half of the United States doesn’t vote, issues that threaten the very heart of America’s purpose itself. These effects and a plan of action to solve for the problem will be explored in the next part of this report. Until next week, keep this quote, by William E. Simon, in mind, “Bad politicians are sent to Washington by good people who don’t vote.”

The High School Conservative

     There is an important announcement to make! I now write for an organization called The High School Conservative. While I will still be writing articles on here, you can see allot more of my work at The High School Conservative! I made my first post about Low Voter Turn Out, and I hope you read it. The High School Conservative is a great organization that has the goal of getting teenagers interested in politics and allowing their voice to be heard. Breaking down the stereotypical, self-interested teenager is something I have always been about, this is what they do.
   
     Here is some more information about The High School Conservative: 

The Progressive left has decided it is worthy of remaining in power, come November 7th 2012. In order to reach their goal, they have declared war on anyone and anything that stands in the way of it’s radical ideology, this includes the founding beliefs of our country, which prohibits radicals from destroying our nation.
The ploy being pushed by the Progressives has a dark side. Aside from the racial division, class warfare and false promises being promoted by the Progressive movements, we have noticed a dark symbol of arrogance sitting behind their campaign posters.
One of the most obvious examples of this unruly arrogance is when the left wing named the upcoming generation, ‘Gen 44’ after the 44th President, himself. Such audacity cannot and should not simply be dismissed as a strategy to attract voters. This should be analyzed for what it is: arrogance.
The main question to be posed is simple: Should the millennial generation be known as the generation who stood up and accepted personal responsibility, fixed the problems of the generations before them, reshaped the way their peers thought about politics and reformed America back to her true values? Or, should the millennial generation be remembered as the generation that sat idly by as freedom was plucked away by bureaucrats and their big government society?
No question is easy to answer, but the answer is obvious: The choosing of sides resides in the individual, and the individual will always fight for freedom.

2012 Primaries ~ The Summary

This is a comprehensive summary of all of the information gathered from the primaries thus far. This list first details all of the information behind each individual running for the GOP nomination, the results from the primaries, the amount of pledged delegates from each state for each candidate, total delegate counts, the top four possible vice presidential picks for Mitt Romney, and individuals, political parties, and organizations that have endorsed candidates still in the race.

GOP Candidates
1. Tim Pawlenty
• Campaign Start: May 23, 2011
• Political Career: Former two-term governor of Minnesota
• Campaign End: August 14, 2011

2. Thad McCotter
• Campaign Start: July 1, 2011
• Political Career: Five-term Representative for Michigan’s 11th District
• Campaign End: September 22, 2011

3. Herman Cain
• Campaign Start: May 21, 2011
• Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City
• Campaign End: December 3, 2011

4. Michele Bachman
• Campaign Start: June 27, 2011
• Political Career: Three terms Minnesota Congresswoman
• Campaign End: January 4, 2012

5. Jon Hunstman
• Campaign Start: June 21, 2011
• Political Career: Former Governor of Utah, Former U.S. Ambassador to China
• Campaign End: January 16, 2012

6. Rick Perry
• Campaign Start: August 13, 2011
• Political Career: Governor of Texas
• Campaign End: January 19, 2012

7. Jimmy McMillan
• Campaign Start: December 24, 2011
• Political Career: Leader of a Political Party
• Campaign End: March 17, 2012

8. Rick Santorum
• Campaign Start: June 6, 2011
• Political Career: Former two-term senator from Pennsylvania
• Campaign End: April 10, 2012

9. Newt Gingrich
• Campaign Start: May 11, 2011
• Political Career: Former Speaker of the House
• Campaign End: May 2, 2012

10. Fred Karger
• Campaign Start: March 23, 2011
• Political Career: Political Consultant
• Campaign End: Open Bid

11. Kathyern Lane
• Campaign Start: Unknown
• Political Career: None
• Campaign End: Open Bid

12. Andy Martin
• Campaign Start: February 8, 2011
• Political Career: None
• Campaign End: Open Bid

13. Tom Miller
• Campaign Start: July 1, 2011
• Political Career: None
• Campaign End: Open Bid

14. Ron Paul
• Campaign Start: May 13, 2011
• Political Career: Texas Congressman
• Campaign End: Open Bid

15. Mitt Romney
• Campaign Start: June 2, 2011
• Political Career: Former Massachusetts Governor
• Campaign End: Open Bid

16. Matt Snyder
• Campaign Start: Unknown
• Political Career: None
• Campaign End: Open Bid

17. Vern Wuensche
• Campaign Start: July 1, 2011
• Political Career: 2008 Candidate
• Campaign End: Open Bid


The Primary Results
1. Iowa (January 3, 2012)
• Santorum (24.56%)
• Mitt Romney (24.53%)
• Ron Paul (21.43%)

2. New Hampshire (January 10, 2012)
• Mitt Romney (39%)
• Ron Paul (23%)
• Jon Huntsman (17%)

3. South Carolina (January 21, 2012)
• Newt Gingrich (40.43%)
• Mitt Romney (27.85%)
• Rick Santorum (16.97%)

4. Florida (January 31, 2012)
• Mitt Romney (46.42%)
• Newt Gingrich (31.93%)
• Rick Santorum (13.34%)

5. Nevada (February 4, 2012)
• Mitt Romney (50.0%)
• Newt Gingrich (21.1%)
• Ron Paul (18.7%)

6.  Colorado (February 7, 2012)
• Rick Santorum (40%)
• Mitt Romney (35%)
• Newt Gingrich (13%)

7. Missouri (February 7, 2012)
• Rick Santorum (55.2%)
• Mitt Romney (25.3%)
• Ron Paul (12.2%)

8. Minnesota (February 7, 2012)
• Rick Santorum (44.8%)
• Ron Paul (27.2%)
• Newt Gingrich (13%)

9. Maine (February 11, 2012)
• Mitt Romney (39.2%)
• Ron Paul (35.7%)
• Rick Santorum (17.7%)

10. Arizona (February 28, 2012)
• Mitt Romney (39.2%)
• Ron Paul (35.7%)
• Rick Santorum (17.7%)

11. Michigan (February 28, 2012)
• Mitt Romney (47.3%)
• Rick Santorum (26.6%)
• Newt Gingrich (16.2%)

12. Wyoming (March 1, 2012)
• Mitt Romney (38.9%)
• Rick Santorum (31.9%)
• Ron Paul (20.8%)

13. Washington (March 3, 2012)
• Mitt Romney (37.6%)
• Ron Paul (24.8%)
• Rick Santorum (23.8%)

14. Alaska (March 6, 2012)
• Mitt Romney (32.4%)
• Rick Santorum (29.2%)
• Ron Paul (24.0%)

15. Georgia (March 6, 2012)
• Newt Gingrich (47.2%)
• Mitt Romney (25.9%)
• Rick Santorum (19.6%)

16. Idaho (March 6, 2012)
• Mitt Romney (61.6%)
• Rick Santorum (18.2%)
• Ron Paul (18.1%)

17. Massachusetts (March 6, 2012)
• Mitt Romney (72.2%)
• Rick Santorum (12.0%)
• Ron Paul (9.5%)

18. North Dakota (March 6, 2012)
• Rick Santorum (39.7%)
• Ron Paul (28.1%)
• Mitt Romney (23.7%)

19. Ohio (March 6, 2012)
• Mitt Romney (37.9%)
• Rick Santorum (37.1%)
• Newt Gingrich (14.6%)

20. Oklahoma (March 6, 2012)
• Rick Santorum (33.8%)
• Mitt Romney (28.0%)
• Newt Gingrich (27.5%)

21. Tennessee (March 6, 2012)
• Rick Santorum (37.2%)
• Mitt Romney (28.1%)
• Newt Gingrich (23.9%)

22. Virginia (March 6, 2012)
• Mitt Romney (59.5%)
• Ron Paul (40.5%)

23. Vermont (March 6, 2012)
• Mitt Romney (39.7%)
• Ron Paul (25.5%)
• Rick Santorum (23.7%)

24. Wyoming (March 6, 2012)
• Mitt Romney (53.7%)
• Rick Santorum (29.1%)
• Ron Paul (2.9%)

25. Kansas (March 10, 2012)
• Rick Santorum (51.2%)
• Mitt Romney (20.9%)
• Newt Gingrich (14.4%)

26. Alabama (March 13, 2012)
• Rick Santorum (34.5%)
• Newt Gingrich (29.3%)
• Mitt Romney (29%)

27. Mississippi (March 13, 2012)
• Rick Santorum (32.9%)
• Newt Gingrich (31.3%)
• Mitt Romney (30.3%)

28. Hawaii (March 13, 2012)
• Mitt Romney (45.4%)
• Rick Santorum (25.3%)
• Ron Paul (18.3%)

29. Illinois (March 20, 2012)
• Mitt Romney (46.7%)
• Rick Santorum (35%)
• Ron Paul (9.3%)

30. Louisiana (March 24, 2012)
• Rick Santorum (49%)
• Mitt Romney (26.7%)
• Newt Gingrich (15.9%)


Pledged Delegates (If a state is “winner take-all” it will only list one candidate.)
1. Alabama
• Santorum 22
• Gingrich 13
• Romney 12

2. Alaska
• Romney 8
• Santorum 8
• Paul 6
• Gingrich 2

3. American Samoa
• Romney 9

4. Arizona
• Romney 29

5. Colorado
• Santorum 11
• Romney 9
• Gingrich 2
• Paul 1

6. Connecticut
• Romney 28
7. Delaware
• Romney 17

8. Florida
• Romney 50

9. Georgia
• Gingrich 52
• Romney 21
• Santorum 3

10. Guam
• Romney 9

11. Hawaii
• Romney 9
• Santorum 5
• Paul 3

12. Idaho
• Romney 32

13. Illinois
• Romney 45
• Santorum 12

14. Iowa
• Santorum 7
• Paul 7
• Romney 7
• Gingrich 2

15. Kansas
• Santorum 33
• Romney 7

16. Louisiana
• Santorum 10
• Romney 5

17. Maine
• Romney 11
• Paul 9
• Santorum 3

18. Maryland
• Romney 37

19. Massachusetts
• Romney 41

20. Michigan
• Romney 16
• Santorum 14

21. Minnesota
• Santorum 25
• Paul 9
• Gingrich 2
• Romney 2

22. Mississippi
• Santorum 13
• Romney 13
• Gingrich 12

23. Missouri
• Santorum 7
• Romney 12
• Paul 4

24. Nevada
• Romney 14
• Gingrich 6
• Paul 5
• Santorum 3

25. New Hampshire
• Romney 8
• Paul 3

26. New York
• Romney 92
• Gingrich 1

27. North Dakota
• Santorum 11
• Paul 8
• Romney 7
• Gingrich 2

28. Northern Marianas
• Romney 9

29. Ohio
• Romney 40
• Santorum 21

30. Oklahoma
• Santorum 14
• Romney 14
• Gingrich 13

31. Pennsylvania
• Romney 2

32. Puerto Rico
• Romney 23

33. Rhode Island
• Romney 15
• Paul 4

34. South Carolina
• Gingrich 23
• Romney 2

35. Tennessee
• Santorum 29
• Romney 19
• Gingrich 9

36. Vermont
• Romney 9
• Paul 4
• Santorum 4

37. Virginia
• Romney 43
• Paul 3

38. Virgin Islands
• Romney 7
• Paul 1

39. Washington
• Romney 25
• Paul 8
• Santorum 7

40. Washington, D.C.
• Romney 18

41. Wisconsin
• Romney 33
• Santorum 9

42. Wyoming
• Romney 23
• Santorum 2
• Paul 1

Total Delegate Counts
1. Mitt Romney
• Pledged Delegates: 792
• Unpledged Delegates: 49
• Total: 841

2. Rick Santorum
• Pledged Delegates: 273
• Unpledged Delegates: 0
• Total: 273

3. Newt Gingrich
• Pledged Delegates: 138
• Unpledged Delegates: 3
• Total: 141

4. Ron Paul
• Pledged Delegates: 76
• Unpledged Delegates: 0
• Total: 76

Total Delegates (Convention date: August 27 - 30, 2012)
• Pledged Delegates: 1,279
• Unpledged Delegates: 1,007
• Total: 2,286
• Needed for Nomination: 1,144


Top Four Possible Vice President Picks for Romney
1. Marco Rubio
Marco Rubio was elected to the Senate in 2010 with support from the conservative Tea Party wing of the party. The son of Cuban American immigrants, he served in the Florida House of Representatives, a tenure which included the role of speaker. Rubio endorsed Romney March 28, 2012.

2. Chris Christie
Born in Newark, he was elected in 2009 as Governor of New Jersey. He almost ran for Republican nomination this election, but opted to stay out of the race. Christie endorsed Romney in October 2011, and has been a consistent advisor throughout the campaign.

3. Bob McDonnell
The governor of Virginia was first elected in 2009. Prior to his election to the state house, McDonnell served in the Virginia House of Delegates and as Attorney General. McDonnell endorsed Romney in January 2012, before the South Carolina primary and campaigned with the governor there.

4. Paul Ryan
Paul Ryan was first elected to Congress at the age of 28. Now the head of the House Budget Committee, Ryan drafted Republican budgets as an alternative to the president's plan. Ahead of the Republican primary in Wisconsin, Ryan campaigned with Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney for five days, helping to propel Romney to a victory there.


Endorsements
1. Mitt Romney
• Bob McDonnell
• Chicago Tribune
• Christ Christie
• David Parker
• Detroit News
• Donald Trump
• Eric Cantor
• George H. W. Bush
• Jeb Bush
• John Ashcroft
• John Boehner
• John R. Bolton
• John R. Kasich
• Jon Kyl
• Jon Voight
• Mary Taylor
• Matt Mead
• Michael Bishop
• Mitch Daniels
• Mitch McConnell
• Nikki Haley
• Pat Toomey
• Paul Ryan
• Rick Snyder
• Rudy Giuliani
• Tim Johnson
• Tim Pawlenty
• Tom Corbett
• Trace Adkins

2. Ron Paul
• A.J. Spiker
• Aaron F. Libby
• Adam Howard
• Adam Kokesh
• Alex Beltramo
• Allegany County Tea Party of New York
• Andrew Manuse
• Andrew Napolitano
• Andy Sanborn
• Anne Cartwright
• Arab American News
• Berlin Reporter
• Beth A. O Connor
• Bill Gross
• Brandon Immel
• Brent Oleson
• Bruce Fein
• Buffalo Liberty Tea Party of New York
• Calvin Dufraisne
• Cameron DeJong
• Carol Vita
• Cary Condotta
• Charles Key
• Charlie Davis
• Chris Georgacas
• Chuck Baldwin
• Cindy Marshall
• Clinton Daniel
• Conservative Voice
• Coos County Democrat
• Cornel Rasor
• Cory Adams
• Dan Halloran
• Daniel P. Gordon
• Danny Verdin
• David D. Johnson
• David Fischer
• David Ryon
• David Simpson
• DC Tea Party
• Debra Medina
• Dennis Hof
• Donna Mauro
• Drew Ivers
• Dubuque Tea Party of Iowa
• Ezekiel Lyen
• Gary Bunker
• Gary Johnson
• George Lambert
• Gerald Celente
• Glen Bradley
• Glen Massie
• Guy Comtois
• Harold Williams
• Hawaii Bar Owners Association
• Heath Hill
• Heather W. Sirocki
• Iris Mack
• J.R. Hoell
• James Mills
• Jason Overstreet
• Jason Schultz
• Jason Stern of Walker
• Jefferson Republican Party
• Jeffery A Gifford
• Jenn Coffey
• Jeremiah Johnson
• Jesse Ventura
• Jim Forsythe
• Jim Rogers
• Jim Treat
• Joel Robideaux
• Joel Salatin
• John Christina
• Jonathan Johnson
• Jonathan S. Maltz
• Josh Davenport
• Justin Amash
• Justin Machacek
• Karen Kwiatkowski
• Karen Skoog
• Kathy Souza
• Keith Murphy
• Ken Hach
• Kendell Kroeker
• Kent Sorenson
• Kevin Bryant
• Kevin Gutzman
• Kevin Reichard
• Kim Pearson
• Kris Thiessen
• Kyle Jones
• Lance E. Harvell
• Larry C Dunphy
• Laura Jones
• Laurence Rappaport
• Lee Bright
• Linda Bean
• Lisa Scontsas
• Lucien Vita
• Lynn Rudmin Chong
• Mark Stewart
• Mark Warden
• Matt Shea
• Michael D. McClellan
• Michael J. Willette
• Michael Scheuer
• Mike Doherty
• Mike Folmer
• Mike Munch
• Monroe County Tea Party of New York
• Monty J. Pearce
• Murray Sabrin
• Nassim Nicholas Taleb
• Nate Jones
• Nicholas D. Kettle
• Norman Tregenza
• Ontario County Tea Party of New York
• Patrick M. Byrne
• Paul Craig Roberts
• Paul Curtman
• Paul Goppelt
• Paul Ingbretson
• Paul Maloney
• Paul Mirski
• Paul Waterhouse
• Pete Nielsen
• Peter Schiff
• Peter Thiel
• Phil Greazzo
• Phil Hart
• R. Ryan Harmon
• Rand Paul
• Ray White
• Real Liberty Media
• Republican Liberty Caucus
• Richard B. Sanders
• Richard Mack
• Rob Chase
• Robert Kingsbury
• Robert Malone
• Russell Means
• Scott Banister
• Seth Cohn
• Shawn Dietz
• Shirley McKague
• Steuben County Tea Party of New York
• Tammy Simmons
• Tax Accountability of TAC
• Tea Party Coalition of Western New York
• The Daily Iowan
• The Littleton Courier
• The Medfield Press
• Thomas Ravenel
• Thomas Woods
• Tim Comerford
• Tim Johnson
• Tim Pugh
• Tom Burditt
• Tom Davis
• Vito Barbieri
• Wallace Lucas
• Walter B. Jones
• Walter Block

Hungary ~ The Reign of Viktor Orban

     Imagine yourself on an old cobblestone street, with the sun shining down brightly and reflecting off the hard cold stones. You’re in Budapest Hungary with a slight January chill hanging in the air. You’re standing outside an Opera house listening to the music resonating from within. Men and women are entering and exiting in grand attire. As you look back towards the street, you witness a nice beautiful angry mob form. They become violent and begin chanting, “Orban be gone!” and, “Orban the Viktator!”

     This was the scene only this last January second outside an opera house in Budapest where Viktor Orban, Prime Minister of Hungary, was hosting a party. What is happening in Hungary that has finally become worthy of outside attention? The answer is that they are slowly slipping into a European dictatorship. Viktor Orban has been Prime Minister of Hungary since 2010 and has been making many changes in the time he has been in power. On December 30^th, he passed a central bank law in defiance of EU and IMF warnings that it would infringe on the bank's independence. This action caused a funding deal that was being pushed through at the time involving the central bank to now be greatly threatened. This deal is needed to shore up the country's financial markets. "These new bills create the possibility for influence over central bank decision-making based on government and party interests, which... goes against... the basic treaty of the European Union," the Hungarian central bank said in a statement. In response to outrage from the central bank, Orban claims he is finishing up unfinished business he helped start in 1989.

     

     Orban’s “clean up” of Hungary is not only focused on the central bank, but has branched out to other sectors of the society. Having already passed regulations on the media to secure continued support, he is using his two-thirds majority parliament to continue his uninhibited steamroller of change. One of the most controversial changes he has made was to the constitution itself. He has passed what is called “a streamline judiciary system.” It is an attempt to make the judicial process go faster; however, in doing so, gives more control to the government. Instead of justices retiring with age or will, the government now chooses when to fire and hire on impulse. This power is not invested in Viktor Orban though, he decided to give the control of hundreds of Hungarian judges’ job fates to the wife of a close friend and member of his political party. This caused the uproar that was seen January second outside the opera house. The next target he has set his sights on is religion. Orban calls himself a Christian and has taken away tax exemption for all religious establishments other than Christian churches. This is another move causing outrage against him and the Christian community in Hungary. An example of this can be seen at a homeless shelter in Budapest’s 8^th district called the Evangelical Brotherhood. They recently lost this “church” status and with that has gone a predicted half of their future income.

     Viktor Orban is most definitely changing the situation in Hungary; this can be seen in his approval ratings. In 2010 he was elected in a landslide, but now his approval rating has dropped below 20%. Hungary is changing and now the U.S. is speaking out against their turn. Hillary Clinton recently sent a letter to the Prime Minister telling his that his recent changes are most disturbing the United States and democracy in Europe. Hungary’s next election will most likely see Viktor Orban replaced, but the changes he made will be hard to reverse and will last for a long time. 

2012 Election ~ A Third Party Candidate?

As election time rolls around once more there is a growing amount of fears in everyone’s minds. Who will be the GOP nominee? Who will be the Vice Presidential candidate? Will we be able to beat Obama out of office? What will Obama do next? However, one many people ignore is one that holds a much greater threat. Will there be a third party candidate to run in November? This is a very serious question we must ask ourselves because the implications of a third party candidate running are grave. Let’s examine some third party hopefuls and see if there is a chance of a third party run for a major candidate and what impacts will that have on the election?

Now there are some of you out there saying, “That’s a silly question to ask. There are always people running in the third party!” Well, to save ourselves the discrepancy and the unneeded sarcasm of talking about some of the random third party candidates like Jimmy McMillan let’s simply focus on the big ones. The first potential that comes to mind as a major runner would be Donald Trump. In early polls his highest result placed him only 2 points behind President Obama in a head-to-head ballot. However, controversy has arrived over the question of; will he actually run at all? It all comes down to whether he values his show more or the presidency? Giving up the chance to run an earlier campaign, he decided to run another season of his show. This places him now, right before the GOP nomination. This is a strategic time to jump in the race. In April the GOP will choose who will run against Obama, but this provides Trump a chance to flank the majority of Republicans. If he makes a delayed and built up jump into the election at this time he has a slight chance of stealing the lime-light away from the nominee. However, will he actually do this? Is he really this serious about the whole thing? Well according to himself as of this January 29^th, he is. He said that he is still keeping his mind open about a potential third party run if the GOP does not endorse someone that he believes in and can beat Obama.

Besides Donald Trump, there is only one other potential for running third party. This potential is Ron Paul. Ron Paul is an interesting case, because to the understanding of everyone he should have run third party to begin with, because he is a Libertarian. Why he went for the Republican endorsement we’ll never know, but the fact still remains that he is there and a contender. Lately he hasn’t been doing too well in the polls, in fact he has never done too well in the polls. Ron Paul has said on multiple occasions that he will never let down his supports nor let the money they have donated to him go to waste. Does this mean he will never give up and continue the “good fight” until the end? Well, in some interpretations it can; however, as many of his constituents may believe he will run third party, reason points to an emphatic, “no.” Ron Paul has said himself that he would not run third party. That’s good enough for me, running third party after he just said he would not will hurt him too much to even have a chance. Besides, with his constituency so low, he wouldn’t have much of an impact even if he did. This pretty much rules him out and leaves the focus on Trump.

So, why does it matter if someone runs third party or not? This is a free country and everyone has an equal chance. This is very true; however, there are some major impacts of someone of great constituency running third party. Donald Trump has the highest possible chance for running third party, so let’s use him as an example. The problem with a third party bid is lies in the basis that we have a two party system of elections. Let’s say Romney is the GOP nominee. In polls Romney may have 50% of the vote and Obama has the other 50%. If Trump enters the race as a third party he initiates what is called the “spoiler effect.” The spoiler effect is essentially splitting the vote for a party. Trump always has supporters whether he runs or not. If he does not run his supporters instead back Romney because he is the candidate that most closely supports their viewpoint. If Trump enters the race then his supporters now shift over to him. An example of a poll with Trump as a third party candidate may look something like this: 25% support Romney, 25% support Trump, and 50% support Obama. With the vote split between the republican party, in a winner take all system like we have, Obama would be reelected for a second term, because he had the majority of the vote. This happened once before when Clinton was running for president, it happened both of his runs, but the biggest effect was during his first bid. This is why a third party candidate can provide such a great threat in a presidential election. Although they may mean well, they can cause the very people they are trying to replace to get reelected. 

Tax Reform ~ Lowering the Corporate Income Tax

With United States tax code that consists of over 60,000 pages of complex law, simplifying the tax code or even abolishing it is something that has been on many economists minds lately. In fact, even former presidential candidate Herman Cain proposed similar action through his 9-9-9 plan. However, this scares many people, believing that taking such a massive change in the U.S. tax system could decrease revenue so much our government wouldn’t be able to function. So, instead they have proposed simple tax cuts as a plan of action. Let’s examine one of those tax cut proposals.

One popular proposal among economists and businesses is lowering the corporate income tax. For many years higher wage prices and higher taxes have driven U.S. businesses away to other countries, mainly China. So, why not just lower the tax to bring them back? Well, studies have been done on the effects of such actions. Economists say that through repatriating businesses back to the U.S. we will increase our GDP by up to $336 billion, increase employment in America by up to 2.5 million jobs, and actually increase revenue entering the federal government by $36 billion dollars by simply lowering to a rate of at least 25%, to be competitive again with China.

Where are all of these predicted effects coming from? The answer is pretty simple actually. When the businesses went overseas they did two things. First, they took some money with them, secondly, they made money while they were over there. Currently there is an estimated $1.2 trillion in overseas banks made by U.S. businesses. Brining back this money along with the businesses we have lost would be a massive boost to our economy. However, one thing remains the same, China and other foreign countries still have lower wage prices. This means that all of the manufacturing jobs won’t necessarily come back.

So, what will lowering the corporate income tax do to help us or will it do anything at all. Well, I must certainly say it will help us, not in a massive way that complete tax reform will, but it will have some effect. As studies have shown we will increase jobs, but we will not increase manufacturing jobs because China is a better place for manufacturing. So what jobs are we creating? Well, statistics have shown that China is running low on high-skilled jobs. What is one thing we have too much of in the U.S. and not enough positions to fill? It’s high-skilled jobs. With all of the millions of college students graduating each year we have more and more people to fill non-existent jobs. Being that we would provide more an opportunity for businesses to save money in the U.S. through lowering taxes we will be able to create more high-skill opportunities for individuals in the U.S. This comes with one drawback. Manufacturing creates more jobs than high-skilled jobs right? Well, not necessarily. Immediately we won’t have much of a job increase and our economy would still continue to decline, but things like this take time. A study done in Florida showed that by creating only 100 high-skilled jobs they actually created 250 more lower skilled income jobs. Why? Well, high-skilled jobs make new inventions, these are smart people. To make those new inventions come true, you have to build them. That’s where the manufacturing comes into play. So, in the end, it would take time for our economy to get back underway by just lowering the corporate income tax, but in the long run it would benefit the economy greatly. 

India ~ Making Sense of the Indian Government

     The American constitutionalist James Madison held that, "the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judicial in the same hands may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” The core of any strong democracy depends upon how the powers of the central government are established. The British Empire was the largest empire in history and for over a century was the foremost global power, controlling one-fifth of the world’s population. America’s colonization by the British Empire began in 1607 and continued until the American Revolution in 1776. India was colonized by the British Empire in 1858 until they gained their independence in 1947. Both of these nations established democratic forms of government based on British influence. Democracy in the United States took a presidential style of government while India accepted a parliamentary form of government. These two models of democracy practice separation of powers in different ways. This paper will examine the similarities and differences of the three branches of government in terms of separation of powers between the United States and India.

     Separation of powers is the principle or system of vesting in separate branches the executive, legislative, and judicial powers of a government. In its usual operational form, one branch of government, the legislative, is entrusted with making laws, a second, the executive, with executing them, and a third, the judiciary, with resolving disputes in accordance with the law. The doctrine of separation of powers is generally credited to the French political philosopher Baron de Montesquieu. His basic contention was that those entrusted with power tend to abuse it; therefore, if governmental power is fragmented, each power will operate as a check on the others. As a further protection, the personnel of each branch are selected by different constituencies and procedures for different terms of office. While the United States government holds to a separation of power within the three branches, there is no true separation of power within the Indian government, especially between the executive and legislative branches.

     First, there are distinct similarities between the legislative branches of the Indian and U.S. governments in terms of separation of powers. The legislative branch in India is composed of two houses, the Lok Sabha, the House of the People, and the Rajya Sabha, the Council of States. Both of these houses make up the Indian Parliament. Similarly, the legislative branch in the United States consists of the House of Representatives and the Senate which combined forms the U.S. Congress. In India, the Parliament is mainly the law-making organ. It can make laws on all the matters specified in the union list, which is the provided powers to the central government in the Indian constitution. While the president has the power to sign treaties, it is Parliament that has the right to ratify them. The Parliament controls the union purse. No taxes can be levied and no expenditure can be made by the government without its approval. It determines the financial policy of the country. The Indian Parliament also has the authority to impeach and remove the President of the Republic. Likewise, the United States Congress is the sole law-making organ in the U.S. government. It alone can ratify treaties that the president signs. It enacts taxes, authorizes borrowing, and sets the budget. Finally, Congress has the power to impeach and remove those in the executive branch.

     However, there are differences between the United States and India when it comes to the legislative branch. In a parliamentary form of government, the Parliament is supreme and the ministers are drawn from the Parliament to make up the cabinet. These ministers which come from Parliament are accountable to Parliament. Therefore, as ministers, they are part of the executive branch. So overall, there is less separation of powers in the parliamentary government because the legislative and executive are so closely knit. This is in contrast to the United State’s presidential form of government where the executive is completely separated from the legislature. The members of the executive are not members of the legislature. In the presidential system, the President appoints persons from outside the legislature as cabinet members, not from inside the legislature. As one can see through this, there is much more separation of powers between the executive and legislative within the United States, as opposed to India.

     Next, a comparison of the executive branch between the U.S. and Indian governments in terms of separation of powers needs to be made. According to both the Indian and United States constitutions, the President is the head of the state and the government. The administration of the whole country is carried on in his name. He also takes up the task of negotiating treaties and agreements with other countries subject to ratification by the legislature. In addition, he appoints the judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts. Even though the President of India is the constitutional head of government, in reality, he is merely a figure head while the real power of the executive branch has been granted to the Prime Minister. Therefore, in order to more accurately compare the executive branches of the two countries, one must consider the duties of the Prime Minister of India to the duties of the President of the United States. The Prime Minister is the true head of the government. All major appointments of the union government are virtually made by the Prime Minister. Additionally, all the major decision-making bodies are under his supervision and direction. Just like the President of the U.S., the Prime Minister presides over the meetings of the cabinet, plays a leading role in making decisions in all domestic and foreign policy, and prepares the annual budget.

     On the other hand, there are many contrasts that can be made between the executive branches of the two countries. The Prime Minister is selected by a majority vote of the lower house of Parliament. The Prime Minister appoints members from Parliament to form the cabinet of the President. The cabinet of India is the collective decision-making body of the government of India. As stated earlier, the President of India is only a figure head while the President of the United States is the executive head. The President of India is required to follow the advice of his cabinet and has no veto power. However, he does have the ability to dissolve the Lok Sabha, the lower house of the legislative branch. In addition, he can transfer or remove judges from the Supreme and High Courts. To the contrary, the United States President has many different powers. He is elected by electoral college, but through a general election by the people not a parliament. In the presidential system, the President appoints persons from outside the legislature as cabinet members. Unlike the Indian president, the U.S. president is not bound to follow the advice of his cabinet and is the sole decision maker of his actions. He does have veto power over Congress. Furthermore, the U.S. president cannot dissolve any house of Congress and he cannot transfer or remove any judges.

     The final branch in which separation of powers must be compared and contrasted between the U.S. and India is the judicial. The Indian Supreme Court has the judicial power to declare a statute unconstitutional. As originally enacted, the Constitution of India provides for a Supreme Court with a Chief Justice and seven lower-ranking judges. Only Parliament has the power to increase this number. This is similar to the U.S. in that the United States Supreme Court has the power of judicial review to declare any law passed by Congress unconstitutional. Congress authorizes a set number of judge positions, or judgeships, for each court level. Since 1869, Congress has authorized nine positions for the Supreme Court. However, the judicial systems of both countries also contrast on two points. The India Supreme Court has been given very wide powers, including appellate jurisdiction for both civil and criminal cases. The Chief Justice and other judges of the Supreme Court hold the office up to the age of sixty-five years. On the contrary, the United States Supreme Court has not been given any such type of appellate jurisdiction as India. Furthermore, the Supreme Court judges of the United States are granted life tenure instead of an age limit.

     In conclusion, this report has examined the separation of powers in the government of both India and the United States. It has divided up the three branches of each government and has compared and contrasted each accordingly. First, this paper examined the executive and legislative branches. Moreover, it concluded with comparing and contrasting the judicial branch as well. In the end, one can see that in some areas India’s separation of powers is very different from the United States, specifically in terms of the executive and legislative. However, at the same time, India’s judicial branch had more comparisons than contrasts to the U.S. One important thing to remember is that no matter what form the separation of powers comes in, it is vital to the survival of any democracy. Thomas Jefferson said, “The way to have safe government is not to trust it all to the one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to everyone exactly the functions in which he is competent.”

Dictionary.com. “separation of powers.” Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com, undated. Web,. 8 January 2012 <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/separation+of+powers>

Torodash, Martin. “Seperation of Powers.” Scholastic.com. Scholastic, undated. Web,. 8 January 2012            <http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/seperation-powers>

Legal Service India.com, “Separation Of Powers: Its Scope And Changing Equations.” Legalserviceindia.com. Legal Service India, 4 Oct 2007. Web,. 8 January 2012, <http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l16-Separation-Of-Powers.html>

Sharma, Smita. “Essays on the composition and powers of the union Parliament of India.” Preservearticles.com. Preserve Articles, undated. Web,. 8 January 2012, < http://www.preservearticles.com/2011100314410/essays-on-the-composition-and-powers-of-the-union-parliament-of-india.html>

White House. “The Legislative Branch.”  Whitehouse.gov. White House, undated. Web,. 8 January 2012 <http://www.whitehouse.gov/our-government/legislative-branch>

Sharma, Smita. “Essays on the composition and powers of the union Parliament of India.” 

Wikipedia. “Separation of Powers.” Wikipedia.org. Wikipedia, undated. Web,. 8 January 2012.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution>

Sharma, Smita. “10 Essential Powers of the President of India.” Preservearticles.com. Preserve Articles, undated. Web,. 8 January 2012,

<http://www.preservearticles.com/201104265930/10-essential-powers-of-the-president-of-india.html>

Sharma, Smita. “What Are the Judicial Powers of the President of India.” Preservearticles.com. Preserve Articles, undated. Web,. 8 January 2012,

http://www.preservearticles.com/2011091313257/what-are-the-judicial-powers-of-the-president-of-india.html

Sharma, Smita. “Powers and Functions of the Prime Minister.” Preservearticles.com. Preserve Articles, undated. Web,. 8 January 2012,  <http://www.preservearticles.com/201103104437/powers-and-functions-of-the-prime-minister.html>

Sharma, Smita. “Difference Between Indian President and American President.” Preservearticles.com. Preserve Articles, undated. Web,. 8 January 2012, <http://www.preservearticles.com/201012301973/difference-between-indian-president-and-american-president.html>

Sharma, Smita. “Essential Powers of the President of India.” Preservearticles.com. Preserve Articles, undated. Web,. 8 January 2012,  <http://www.preservearticles.com/201104265930/10-essential-powers-of-the-president-of-india.html>

Sharma, Smita. “What are the Differences between Parliamentary and Presidential Form of Government.” Preservearticles.com. Preserve Articles, undated. Web,. 8 January 2012,  <http://www.preservearticles.com/2011091313261/what-are-the-differences-between-parliamentary-and-presidential-form-of-government.html>

Sharma, Smita. “What is the Relationship between the Legislature and the Judiciary.” Preservearticles.com. Preserve Articles, undated. Web,. 8 January 2012, <http://www.preservearticles.com/2011092714144/what-is-the-relationship-between-the-legislature-and-the-judiciary.html>

Wikipedia. “Supreme Court of India.” Wikipedia.org. Wikipedia, undated. Web,. 8 January 2012. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_India#Composition>

Wikipedia. “Judicial Review in the United States.” Wikipedia.org. Wikipedia, undated. Web,. 8 January 2012. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_the_United_States>

Federal Judicial System. “How the Federal Courts Are Organized.” Fjc.gov. Federal Judicial System, undated. Web,. 8 January 2012. http://www.fjc.gov/federal/courts.nsf/autoframe?OpenForm&nav=menu3c&page=/federal/courts.nsf/page/A783011AF949B6BF85256B35004AD214?opendocument

Sharma, Smita. “Difference Between Indian Constitution and American Constitution.” Preservearticles.com. Preserve Articles, undated. Web,. 8 January 2012,  <http://www.preservearticles.com/201012301970/difference-between-indian-constitution-and-american-constitution.html>

Sharma, Smita. “Short Essay on the Supreme Court of India.” Preservearticles.com. Preserve Articles, undated. Web,. 8 January 2012,  <http://www.preservearticles.com/2011121318388/short-essay-on-the-supreme-court-of-india.html>

Wikipedia. “Supreme Court of the United States.” Wikipedia.org. Wikipedia, undated. Web,. 8 January 2012. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States