CISPA And How to Contact Your Representative

This week I am going to tell you how you can do something that is integral to our political process – contacting your representative.  

This could be your local city planner, your state congressman, or a federal senator.  Believe it or not, it’s not all that hard.

But before I get into the process, let me give you a reason to contact your senator to ask them to not pass recent legislation

CISPA

The “Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act,” or CISPA, is a proposed bill that is currently in the process of becoming law.  It is designed to be an addition to the National Security Act of 1947, which does not contain language pertaining to cybercrime.  It has passed Congress and is currently being debated in the Senate.

Why should you care about this law?

If you are linked to the Internet to any degree it is likely you heard about SOPA/PIPA a few months ago.  These laws were designed to provide security in the Internet, but due to broad language and heavilly debated interpretations of the 5th Amendment, the bills were down voted.

Now CISPA enters into the voting docket, and let me tell you the language is more sweeping and the invasion of personal privacy is much deeper than SOPA/PIPA ever were.

In short, the bill allows for the government and private companies to access personal information in order to detect cyber security threats.  If a threat is found, the bill also provides channels in which that information can be shared with agencies of the Federal Government.

You may say, “This is no big deal, I don’t threaten people on the Internet.”

Are you sure?

One of the private companies that has supported this bill is Facebook.  It would also be on the list of companies granted the right to search for cyber threats on the Internet.  What does this mean?

Let’s say you just finished paying your taxes and it was higher than you expected.  You’re probably not too happy about it.  Of course, you go on to Facebook and let your rage spill over in the hopes of getting comfort from your online friends.  Instead, Facebook interprets your rant against taxes as a threat to the government.  Next thing you know, you get a knock on your door and the Secret Service would like to have a word with you.

You think I’m joking or blowing this out of proportion?  Just last week Ted Nugent got a visit from the Secret Service for inflammatory remarks he made.  Of course, no action could be taken against him because he is a celebrity and people would get upset if he were wronged.  Do you enjoy that same celebrity?  Are you going to be protected if the Secret Service or Homeland Security decided you were a threat?

You may be thinking “There are laws on the books to protect me from such invasion of personal property.”

Wrong.

While there are laws that do just that, again the wording of CISPA protects agencies and private companies from legal blowback.  First off, surveillance may be conducted regardless of previously established laws.  Second, companies can report their suspicious activities to the government without identifying themselves, meaning an accused person would not have the right to see his accuser.

I don’t want to come off as a crazy on this, but I’m only applying the letter of the law to an everyday circumstance.  I’m not alone.

The ACLU, The Center for Democracy and Technology, and The Constitution Project are just a few of the many organizations opposing the bill on the grounds that it negates privacy rights and gives too much power of surveillance to federal agencies and private companies.

 I don’t have the time now to tell you all the evils of this bill.  Let me encourage you to simply Google “CISPA” and briefly educate yourself.  Then you’ll see where I’m coming from.

Contact Your Senator

So the bill is now going to be discussed in the Senate.  This is the last chance for you as a voting citizen to voice your concerns directly to your representative.  There are three ways to do it, each to your preference and you can choose whichever you believe to be the most effective.

You can call, e-mail, or write your senator.  Here’s a real simple guide to the whole process.

It isn’t hard to send off a quick e-mail, or make a phone call.  If you’re really committed, nothing says “I care about this bill” like a written letter of complaint.

Don’t let this bill pass under the radar like NDAA (a separate bill that took away your right to trial).  If you care about your liberty, you must defend it.  You must view this as an assault on your freedoms – because it is!  Take the time and the effort to keep it.  

It is harder to gain back freedoms lost than to protect freedoms already earned.

Romney The Nominee

The media is covering the presidential elections as though Romney is the nominee for the GOP.  Newt Gingrich all but dropping out should help him wrap things up, but with the news that Ron Paul won the majority of delegates in Iowa and Minnesota may have people second-guessing Romney’s presumptive win.

That said, I want to cover a fresh topic so I’ll operate under the assumption that Romney will eventually win the nomination.  This post will discuss Romney’s strategy moving forward.

Last week, I talked about the considerations Romney will have for a VP.  Just as that person needs to have qualities that will attract voters to Romney’s camp, so too will Romney have to find a way to re-fashion himself into a solid general election candidate.

You may be confused as to why Romney needs to change his campaign.  Well, it’s really quite simple.  The constituency changes with a general election.  During the primary season, it is largely Republicans voting, which means Romney needs to appeal to the GOP base.

With a general election, Republicans, Democrats, and most importantly Independents will be voting.  Romney needs to highlight himself in a way that will appeal more towards right-leaning Democrats and Independents without alienating his base.

This is where Romney puts himself in a bit of a bind.  He is already viewed as a shape-shifter.  He has had multiple stances on matters of policy and has had a severe change of heart since 2006, particularly concerning abortion (he was pro-choice before ’06).

In my humble opinion, there is little for Romney to do to try and change his image again.  He should stand by what he has been saying during the primaries in the hopes of keeping the base.  If he switches position again, even on a minor thing, he could upset a lot of voters and lose those votes.

Romney’s best bet is to stay relevant but not be outspoken and let all the GOP leaders who have endorsed him do the heavy campaigning.  That way he will be seen but if any gaffs are made, it will be on someone else’s head.

How to Pick a Vice-President

Last week I outlined why in all likelihood Romney will get the Republican nomination.  The next step in the process is to pick a vice-presidential candidate.  There are a few general concerns the party will have.

Name Recognition

Is the VP candidate recognizable to the general public?

One of the functions of the VP during the campaign is to reach voters who would not typically vote for the presidential candidate.  If the VP candidate is unknown, he/she will be incredible ineffective in this venture.

Name recognition can come from a couple different sources.  Popular to the VP slot are governors of states that have gotten a lot of media attention.  For example, Chris Christie – the governor of New Jersey – has gotten a lot of media attention for his battling of teacher’s unions and balancing the state’s budget.

The other source of name recognition can come from congressmen having landmark legislation.  Paul Ryan from Wisconsin has received a lot of positive press for his budget plan (that was revoked by the Obama administration).

Location, Location, Location

The next couple of aspects desired in a VP candidate will be relative to the presidential candidate.  For the sake of this article, we’ll assume Romney is the candidate (even though he hasn’t technically wrapped it up).

Romney’s strong region will be the Northeast.  The Republicans in this area tend to be more moderate and will have political views and lifestyles more in line with Romney.

Potential candidates might be picked because for their location.  Jan Brewer, the governor of Arizona is one such person.

Policy

In many of the candidates, there will be a need to balance policy between Romney an the VP.

As I just said, Romney is more of a moderate.  To balance this out and give him a stronger voting presence with conservative voters, the party might choose a candidate renown for their strong conservative values.

Sen. John Thune of South Dakota might be a strong contender in this slot.  Not only is he well-known for his conservative positions, he is well-known among evangelical voters.  Romney is an anomaly as he is the first candidate to run who is not a member of a main-stream Christian denomination.  With Thune as a running mate, he may be able to capture more of the values voters in the Republican party.

Gender, Race, and Age

I’m going to lump all of these together as they are similar.  Romney is a white, upper middle-aged man.  If there were to be a one-word description for the guy it would be vanilla.  He may want to vary the look of his ticket by getting a radically different person to fill the VP slot.

Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina would certainly fit the bill.  She is a young female of Native American descent.  Additionally she has gotten good media exposure for her work in the state as a strong conservative with a lot of energy.

The VP candidate will likely be chosen in the next couple of weeks in preparation for Romney’s campaign against Obama.  There really isn’t a short list of possible candidates so until that time, we’re just going to be left in the dark.

 

Does the GOP Have Its Nominee?

This week there has been a whole lot of buzz in the political sphere because Rick Santorum suspended his campaign for the presidency.

Santorum had been considered the conservative opposition to the moderate Mitt Romney in this election cycle.  He had the second most delegates of the candidates and was second in polls in states with upcoming primaries.

So a lot of pundits and political analysts have said with Santorum out, Romney has little competition for the rest of the nomination race.  I’m not going to out and out disagree with their analysis here, but there is an aspect to the election not being discussed.

As I have said in earlier posts, the nomination process is all about getting a majority of the delegates to vote for a candidate.  The reason why the analysts are saying Romney can wrap up the nomination is that the presumed thought is he will have sweeping victories in the upcoming primaries and get that coveted majority.  While this is likely to happen, there are some othe possibilities.

First off, I am not so quick to forget the “Not Romney” vote.  These are the Republicans who are so set against Romney as their candidate they will vote for anyone else.  I think this is still a serious consideration.  Just look at the Virginia primary.  The race was only between Romney and Ron Paul.  Paul, who did little campaigning in the state, was able to get 40% of the vote.

Getting back to the delegates, you have to realize that some of the delegates tied to Santorum are now free to cast their vote for any candidate of their choosing.  Some analysts think these people will vote for Romney because no one wants to be on the losing team.  I am not as convinced.  The Paul campaign has actively tried to plant their supporters into the ranks of the delegates even if they would have to originally vote for a different candidate.  If there are enough of these people, there is still a chance Paul could steal enough votes from Romney to cause a brokered convention.

It’s important to note that I am in agreement with the analysts that Romney will likely have an easy path to the nomination from here on out, but for the purposes of this blog I feel compelled to at least bring up other possibilities.

Be sure to comment with your thoughts!

Who’s Responsible for Our Gas Problems?

There has been a lot of debate recently about the price of gas.  Why is it going up?  Can the president do anything to help?  Why is something so closely tied to my wallet such a political topic?  Just make it better!

Before I get into specifics on the situation I want to make clear this is a complex subject with a lot of layers that I cannot get into in this forum.  A more knowledgeable person could write a book or two on just this matter, so if you feel I missed something, don’t hate me and by all means, share your thoughts in the comments.

Supply and Demand

As is the case with any product in a free market, price is affected by supply and demand.  In other words how much of the product there is and how much people want to buy it create a price for a product.

In the case of fossil fuels, there is a pretty high demand from the industrialized world.  This includes countries like the United States, England, France, Germany, China, India, and Russia – to name only a few.  The demand is so high in these countries because much of the machinery is run off fossil fuels. To keep things simple, we will just say that demand is high, if not rising.

Supply then, is what is making our prices volatile.  It is strange, though, because in reality the actual supply of fossil fuels, specifically the fuels used to make gas, are not being produced at a slower rate.  Why then is supply to be blamed?

Myths

First I want to dispel a few popular myths.

Many politicians on the right argue that our gas prices are rising because Obama has an agenda to push green energy and has shut down projects like the Keystone Pipeline.  For the most part, this is just silly.

The graphs I posted here show that while Obama has been in power, both the production of natural gas and oil in America has increased.  There are many factors as to why this is, but what is pertinent to the current discussion is that our gas prices are not rising because U.S. production has decreased.

Secondly, I need to disprove that U.S. production even effects gas prices.  It simply doesn’t.  The amount of oil America produces in miniscule in the grand scheme of things.  Because oil supply comes from the entire world, the relatively paltry amount that America produces (less that 5% of the global share) does not directly affect the price of gas.

There has been renewed cried of “drill baby, drill.”  That is to say, that if America would just start tapping into all the oil reserves we have, particularly in ANWR and the Gulf Coast, we could add to the supply thus cheapening the price.

While this may have some effect in the long term, analysts agree that what affect it does have will not be dramatic nor will it come quickly enough to help immediately.

Lastly, there is a notion that if the government would release some of the oil reserves we have stored up, it would ease the pain of filling up our cars.

Again, while this would help in the short-term by increasing supply, it is not a long-term solution and many experts believe the reserves should be stored for darker days than $4.00/gallon gas.

Let’s Get Political

This is where the politics start to get involved.

Gas prices are based largely off of the advice of oil speculators.  These speculators look into the future to anticipate what changes could occur to affect the supply or demand of oil and suggest prices based off that information.  Because this is the system, you will hear in the news that the speculators are to blame for the price of oil being so high – that’s what the left is saying right now.

But are the speculators being unreasonable?

Currently America and Israel are engaging in a lot of saber rattling with Iran.  Iran happens to produce 20% of the world’s oil.  The speculators are looking ahead to a possible confrontation in Iran and the drop in supply that would create and planning accordingly.  I won’t go into detail about why they would set the price high because of this, but if you want to know more, here is an excellent video explaining it.

So while speculators are in part to blame for the rise in gas prices, they are only reacting to market conditions – something that would occur in any industry.  In fact, it could be argued that if America would not threaten to disrupt Iran’s trade by starting a war, the speculators would have no reason to assume a disruption in the supply of oil.  In a way, our foreign policy is hurting our domestic prices – but I won’t go into that debate here.

There are other factors that contribute to the rise in gas price as well.  One factor – and this really affects every sector of the economy – is the weakening of the dollar.

Inflation is largely to blame for the dollar being weaker.  I won’t go into it here but this post talks specifically to gas prices and this to policy of the Federal Reserve that is causing the dollar to weaken and thus hurt the purchasing power of our currency.

I’ll finish with a breif explanation of how the price at the pump is established.

As you can see in the picture to the right, the price of crude oil is 71% of the price of gas.  The other 29% is refining, taxes, and distribution.

The price of crude oil, distribution and refining are largely unalterable by our government, so that percentage of the price is given.  However, 11% of the price is taxes.  Taxes, as it so happens, is alterable by our government.  In the case of gas prices, the taxes come both from the federal government and the state government.

To make my point simple, though, let’s say we eliminated 5% of that price in tax revenue.  Certainly that would mean our government would have to curtail that much revenue in their spending but it would mean a 5% drop in the price of gas.  Which at $4?gallon is $.20/gallon cheaper.  Let’s extrapolate that out a bit.

If you fill up your car once a week, and your car has a gas tank of 20 gallons, you would save each week $4.  Over a year, you would then save $208.  So by cutting a small percentage in taxes, I argue that the government would have a short-term fix for the gas problem.

As far as long-term fixes go, I think there needs to be a change in our foreign policy, currency policy, domestic restrictions on fossil fuel producers, and innovation of alternative fuels.

What The Political Debates Actually Do

This primary cycle has had more emphasis put on the debates than any other in recent memory.  However it may be difficult to sort out what these debates are actually showing us about the candidates.  Hopefully this post will give you some guidance for the next one.

The Positive

I’ll start with some of the good things the debates do.

First off, they give second or third-tiered candidates a platform in which to stake their claims.  This is exactly what happened with Rick Santorum.  The man was completely unknown and considered out of the race until he had a couple of good debate performances.  It is because of those good performances that he was able to win the Iowa primary and be a contender.

To some degree, this eliminates the traditional way of campaigning.  Candidates no longer need to have a country-wide organization to be successful.  Tennessee is a great example – again for Santorum.  His campaign was terribly organized.  He did not appoint a state organizer until mid-December and county delegates were being assigned as late as the week before the primary.  But he still won the state.

The debates test the candidates’ ability to perform well under pressure.  It’s not easy to calmly state your ideas while you are blinded by stage lights in front of thousands of people in the audience knowing the other people on the stage are looking to pounce on any mistake you make.  To successfully debate is to be able to perform well at state functions with foreign dignitaries.

The Negative

These debates aren’t really debates.  A true debate is where a person will make an argument and defend it and then others can make counter-argument and defend that.

None of that happens in these debates.  Rather, each candidate takes their allotted time to say why their view concerning an issue is best and to be the best-looking person while doing it.  The most successful debaters are the ones who can stand firm in their beliefs while criticizing other candidates without appearing upset.

For the hosts of the debate, this is political theatre.  The number one goal of any news station is to get the best ratings possible.  Debates have been proven to pull a larger audience and to increase their chances, hosts are spicing the broadcast up with live blogging, Tweeted questions, play-by-play analysis, and ridiculous introductions.  These debates closely resemble a sports broadcast.

The issues are not discussed.  In these debates, there is no back and forth between candidates with opposing viewpoints on specific issues.  Sure, it will happen every once in a while, but more often disputes arise when one candidate attacks the character of another candidate.  This is not only destructive to our political discourse, it highlights that there is truly little difference between the candidates.

There are so many debates that the average person cannot hope to keep up with developments.  The two debates in New Hampshire are an excellent example of this.  There was a debate held Saturday evening and then twelve hours later another debate was held as a special for “Meet the Press.”  Given the way the 24-hour news cycle works, there is no way people could get coverage of the first debate in time for the second.  This basically makes the first debate a wash.

Hopefully this gives you a little insight into the debates and will help you be discerning when you watch the next one.

What a Brokered Convention Could Mean for the Republican Party

There has been a lot of talk recently about the possibility of a brokered convention later this year when the GOP meets in Tampa Bay this summer.  This post will give you a bit of explanation of what a brokered convention is and what it may mean for the presidential race.

A Definition

A convention is considered “brokered” if the delegates who represent the candidates do not come to a majority consensus on their candidate.

That is to say a vote is taken and if a candidate does not get more than 50% of the vote – in this case it is 1,144 delegates – the convention is brokered.  If that happens, many of the delegates will be “unbound” to their candidate.  So a delegate who was representing a vote for Mitt Romney could change their mind and vote for Ron Paul, or vice versa.

In this case, the candidates can appeal to these delegates to try and get more votes in favor of themselves.  The voting process will be repeated until a single candidate gets the 1,144 votes.  At that time he will then be the GOP nominee for the presidency.

Delegate Count

This is why the news covers how many delegates each candidate has.

However, the current number of delegates each candidate has we see in the news is not the actual number.  These are estimates based off the votes the candidates earned in each state.  In caucus states, the final delegation will not be announced until a few months after the general vote has been conducted.  See my previous post on caucus states for more on that.

There are a few states that have some other weird rules too.  For example, in Tennessee, Rick Santorum earned 29 delegates, having won the state with 37% of the vote.  However he did not have any confirmed delegates in the state, which means the state appoints the delegates.  Some of them may not end up voting in the convention for Santorum.

Right now the projected delegate count is as follows:

Mitt Romney: 495

Rick Santorum: 252

Newt Gingrich: 131

Ron Paul: 48

Again, take all this with a grain of salt.  For example, insiders in the Paul campaign believes they have over 200 delegates.  So these numbers are estimates at best.

The Big Picture

Getting back to the convention and the politics of it, you may be asking yourself “Why do I care about all this?”  Well, this is where we get into some deeper politics.

The GOP wants to have a convention in which the party appears united behind their nominee.  This will make the party look stronger, which will help them get the undecided voters in the coming election.  If the convention is brokered, it will make the party appear fractured and weak, detracting potential voters.

The goal for the party between now and August is to decide which candidate they want to support.  If they can come to a consensus before the convention, the meeting will be one big celebration of the Republican Party and allow them to use the media coverage there to prepare for the battle between their nominee and President Obama.

Currently it doesn’t look like the party is aligning themselves behind one candidate, which could spell trouble for the eventual nominee.  The President is already in a position of power and will be hard to beat in a general election, but if his competition is a controversial figure within the GOP, the likelihood he will be reelected is pretty high.

Super Tuesday Results and What They Mean

This past Tuesday, ten states held primaries or caucuses for the GOP presidential race.  This may seem insignificat, but in the race for the presidency, this day is typically a big deal.

Traditionally, Super Tuesday is the day in which the field of candidates gets trimmed to a few or a decisive blow has been struck in favor of one candidate.  This happened in 2008 with John McCain,

This election cycle however that did not happen.  In the end, Mitt Romney won 6 states, Rick Satnorum won 3, and Gingirch won 1 – Georgia.  Paul was the only candidate who did not win a state, but that is not a setback for his campaign – a topic we will discuss in an upcoming post.

Since three of the candidates won states – more importantly Romney didn’t win all of them – there is no impetus to leave the campaign.  While Romney has a commanding lead, he has not secured the nomination.  There is still ample opportunity for Santorum, Gingrich, or Paul to capture delegates and make a stab at a front-runner position.

This will likely go all the way to the convention in the summer.  At that time the delegates will cast their votes.  If one candidate gets a majority of the votes, he will be the Republican nominee for the presidency.  If not, the convention will be brokered and some politicking will happen.  More votes will be cast until a nominee is established.

What this means for President Obama is that he could have a fractured party in the GOP to run against.  That makes it that much easier for him to earn a reelection.  While it is still up in the air about whether this will actually happen, it is food for thought.

Why You Should Care About Politics

It occurred to me after writing my last post that I have neglected a fundamental point that needs to be made.  I cannot expect you to care about the specifics of how a presidential race works if you do not care about politics in general.  So for today I am going to try and convince you the need for you to be interested in what our government does.

Note I use the word “need.”  This is not hyperbole, rather a matter of fact if you want to see real change occur in our country.

Many Americans don’t feel there needs to be a change in our government.  After all, they can go about their lives without much problem.  They are employed to some degree, have expendable income, and have leisure time in which to spend said income.  What could be bad about that?  Allow me to begin.

The State of Our Union

I’m going to throw some facts at you that are probably new to you.  I do this not to bore you with details, or frighten you with statistics.  I want to show there is a clear and present danger to your way of life.

The unemployment rate in America is currently 8.3%.  What that number really shows is the number of people looking for a job but not finding one.  It does not include the number of people who had a job, got laid off, searched for one but couldn’t find one, and eventually stopped looking.

These people are now subsisting on what checks the government will give them and what savings they have left.  Including these people, unemployment figures shoot up to 15%.  To give you some context, at the height of the Great Depression, the unemployment rate was 25%.

The U.S. budget deficit, which is the debt of one fiscal year, is $1.4 trillion for 2011.  As of the writing of this post, the National Debt is at $15.4 trillion.  I should note there is debate on that last number.  If anything, it is too low a number.  Some economists have the number closer to $200 trillion by including promised funds that don’t exist.  I will talk about how the government gets away with doing this in a later post, but if you want to do your own research, google “federal reserve banking system” and you should have a good start.

To give you an idea of what those numbers mean.  If you spread the national debt over every citizen, you individually owe over $49,000.

We have active war zones in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and are fighting a “War on Terror” in which our stated goal is to stop fighting when terrorists don’t exist anymore.  Jon Stewart has a humorous take on that.

We have over 900 military outposts in over 130 nations across the globe, though number is unclear even to the Pentagon.  Yet we are no closer to ending our wars or reducing the spending associated with maintaining our national forces.

Everyday our rights are challenged by the government.  People have been fined for holding in-home Bible studies, a businessman went to jail for transporting lobster tails in the wrong packaging, lemonade stands have been shut down for violating city ordinances, police no longer need to go to a judge for a warrant, your home can be invaded by authorities without proof of crime.

If you have read any Orwell, Homland Security’s new slogan “If you see something, say something” should ring a bell of “1984.”

If you want a good look at all our legal problems in America, John Stossel did an excellent special on the matter.

Is There No Hope?

What has made headlines for weeks and continues to is President Obama’s Health Care mandate that forces churches to provide medical assistance that goes against their religious beliefs.

This is not a story for you to read and rip out your hair in anger or hang your head in despair.  I wanted to share that with you because many Americans sadly don’t know these things exist.  Hopefully I have sufficiently shown there is a problem with the status quo.

But that status quo does not need to be that way indefinitely.  We are a nation built on individualism, freedom, and revolution.  Our very inception as a country was in reaction to governmental tyranny.  It is the case today that another revolution needs to happen in order to change things.

I am not calling for you to arm yourself and storm Washington, nor do I propose you go all “V for Vendetta” and blow up the White House.  Not only are those ideas stupid, they would work against the change you want and just bunker the establishment down more.

What I am calling for you to do is to become politically active.

Now I know the phrase “politically active” scares a lot of people.  Many think that means they have to watch C-SPAN, read books about politics, and work on a campaign, but let me tell you that is dead wrong.  Don’t misunderstand me, those are excellent things to do and I encourage them, but you don’t have to do that to be effective.

Here are some things you can do to be politically active:

1. Consume the news

This can be as simple as reading a few stories online, watching a cable news show for a half hour, or reading the newspaper.  Bottom line, you can’t make any decision without some information.

2. Talk to people about their political views

This is against everything we’re taught growing up.  There are two things you never discuss: religion and politics.  Well, that hasn’t been my experience and in talking to people not only have I learned more about politics, I have become more confident in my own beliefs.

When you talk to people about politics, just treat them like you would want to be treated.  Be respectful of what they have to say and honestly consider their viewpoints.  If your positions are right, they should be able to stand up to some critique.  And along the way, you might just learn something.

3. Attend community meetings

Nothing gives me less hope for our future than when I go to a local town hall meeting and no one is there.  Local issues matter and in the long run, they affect you more than anything else.  Dipping your toes into local politics is really easy to understand and you will find knowing about the policies that affect you make the political sphere more interesting.

4. Take your vote seriously

I know most people think voting in a general election is throwing their vote away, but let me tell you it is not.  If you take the time to do the aforementioned things you have more than just one vote.  I talk to dozens of people about why I believe what I believe and why I will vote for certain people and oddly enough, they tend to see where I am coming from and agree.  I effectively turn my one vote into many more by being politically active.  Don’t be wishy-washy about the voting process.  If people took it more seriously, we wouldn’t elect jokers into power.

I hope this has been instructional and a little inspirational.  Remember that politics is a part of our life, just like bills, dieting, or decision-making.  It affects our lives.  The question is, will you let politics control you by not participating, or will you actively go out and pursue making your life your own?

Comment below with your thoughts.  This part of life is all about communicating, so express your thoughts or opinions and get the revolution started.

An Introduction to This Year’s Presidential Race

I spend a lot of my time talking about politics with friends, peers, and colleagues. One thing has become quite clear: people don’t feel like the political process is approachable and they are therefore left quite befuddled about the whole affair.

This saddens me because my political ideology, which will become clear to you over time, hinges upon the need for an informed electorate. So my purpose with the next few stories in this blog will be to introduce politics in an easy-to-swallow manner that will hopefully leave you a little less confused.

I will start with a brief “setting of the stage” for the current presidential race.

In the beginning…

The presidential race this year is between an incumbent and a nominee for the opposing party.  Since President Obama is a Democrat, it is up to the Republican party to find a nominee to run against him.

Thus, the political campaign begins.

This cycle the candidates began throwing their name into the hat as early as March of 2011, though the last person to join has been Rick Perry, who waited until August.  The main contenders have been Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, Rick Perry, Jon Huntsman, Gary Johnson, Tim Pawlenty, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum.

Before you look at those names and cry out “I can never keep track of so many people!” Don’t worry, you don’t have to.

Since April there have been a series of debates, polls, and elections called “primaries” or “caucuses” that have whittled the field down to only four.  These are the real contenders and the ones we’ll be focusing on in the future.  They are Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum.  But all that is for later.  For now, just keep those names in the back of your head.

How the process works.

For the GOP nomination process, each state is given a certain number of delegates.  These delegates are assigned to a candidate based on a popular vote by the people of a state.  The delegates from each state then go to the Republican National Convention in August to vote for a nominee.  If one candidate gets a majority of the votes, he will become the nominee and run against the president.  The number of delegates needed to gain a majority is 1,144.  If one candidate cannot get a majority the convention will be “brokered.” I’ll get more into that in a later post.

There are two types of elections held at the state level to elect delegates as I said above called “primaries” or “caucuses.”  Keep in mind each state holds its own election on different days and in different ways, so this next bit might get confusing.

Primaries:

Primaries are very similar to the general election (the election between the president and the opposing party nominee) in that a vote is taken by registered voters and the candidate with the most votes wins the state.  From here, there are two options which vary from state to state.

One way, which used to be the most common, is a winner-take-all scenario in which the candidate with the most votes is awarded all the delegates of that state.

Most states that will hold primaries this year will award delegates by percentage.  That is to say if one candidate wins 25% of the votes, he will be awarded 25% of the delegates.  If another candidate in the same state gets 35% of the votes, he will be awarded 35% of the delegates.

There is one other distinction in states that hold primaries and that is voter requirements.  Some states restrict voters to citizens who are registered with the party.  These are are called “closed primaries.”  Other states that do not restrict voting by party affiliation hold what are called “open primaries.”  Knowing the whether a state is a closed or open primary is critical to a campaign as it can drastically change the identity of the electorate.  But that is yet another topic for later.

Caucuses:

Caucuses are a different beast altogether.  The caucus process is not just a one-time vote to determine who gets what amount of delegates.  Rather it is a series of votes that show a general level of interest until it reaches a conclusion and awards delegates.  Allow me to get into some detail.

The night of a caucus, registered voters go to a meeting place to cast their vote.  But this is not like a primary where you punch a piece of paper in a curtained desk.  Rather you are put in a room with everyone from your precinct (local area).  Then there is time set aside for everyone to voice their opinion on who they believe would make the best candidate.  This can last as long as five minutes – if no one has anything to say – or it can last a few hours – if everyone has something to say.

Then a vote is called for and people write the candidate they want on a piece of paper and hand that in.  These are then tallied and candidates are awarded “precinct delegates” based on the vote total.  This is given by percentage, so if a candidate gets 50% of the vote, he can have 50% of the available precinct delegates.  Of course, this takes some time to happen and a candidate may not have a citizen willing to be a precinct delegate for them.  In this case, another citizen can volunteer to be a precinct delegate.

This whole process is then repeated again at the district level, except instead of having a general vote, only precinct delegates vote.  After the votes at this level are tallied, district delegates are then awarded based off percentage.

These state delegates then have another caucus at the state level in which the votes there are to elect delegates to the national convention.

In a later post, I will get into how this process can be politically expedient for some candidates, but for now I hope the process is a bit clearer.

In summary

I hope this has given you some insight into how things work with our political process and what to expect in the coming weeks.  I look forward to digging into the topics more.

If you have any comments, questions, or concerns, leave  a comment below.  The electoral process is all about communicating so feel free to start it here.