I am in the second paragraph of the product paper. I should be researching more campaigns for election reform today. I am also very near to scheduling my thesis presentation (it should be near the end of April as soon as the other judge confirms).
Notes on this study:
Today I am focusing on the demographics of campaign donors. People who run private campaigns are going to get a donor pool that is small, exclusive, and not racially diverse, in addition to not being financially diverse. The process of getting donors appears to me as a citizen to be a good way to spread awareness about a campaign and get future votes. It looks like a more open way of doing things instead of getting huge donations behind closed doors from super PACs. Of course it would require more effort from the candidates, which they will not like, being to accustomed to funding their campaigns by being rich and knowing rich people.
The donor pool from clean campaigns is also more racially and economically representative of the actual population of the state than that of people running in privately funded campaigns. Also, private donors often come from outside of the state, which gives the people of the state less power.
A bit of an overview on how Arizona's clean funded campaigns work:
Candidates are required to raise a certain amount of money before receiving the public grant. This money must be raised from limited contributions, seed money from private institutions (who cannot contribute after the grant is received), and a limited amount of personal money.
I also read more about the constitutionality of the American Anti-Corruption act. It does seem to hold up in court, especially since the paper was written by prominent constitution attorneys. The process and amount of money involved than in Arizona, which makes this Act more suitable for implementation on a larger scale (congressional and presidential). The provisions address serious issues such as lobbyists, PACs, and contributions from tax-exempt businesses, which are relevant in the presidential election as well.
Thursday, January 29, 2015
Tuesday, January 27, 2015
Campaign Funding, Judges
Time to look more into a problem that is very complicated: campaign finance. While most Americans believe it skews the process in the favor of wealthy candidates and is a hurdle to achieving true democracy, many people also believe it is a problem that is very difficult and even impossible to solve. Today I am looking at public funded campaigns and their results.
It will be difficult to gauge the results in a national election because "clean elections" are only being implemented on lower level elections. The biggest problem so far, predictably, has been securing enough funding for candidates to run. Several other candidates also expressed the concern that they would not secure enough money and did not run. Local level elections simply do not garner the amount of attention or interest that the higher up elections do, so this is a predictable problem. However, it does lower the confidence of the public in clean funding. The Fair Elections Now Act is trying to mitigate this problem by requiring that broadcast time be cheaper for candidates running using public financing.
The American Anti-corruption Act first of all has a very nice website. It seeks to prevent members of Congress from taking money from industries that they regulate, limit Super PAC contributions, prevent the use of job offers as "bribes", limit lobbying, mandate transparency in funding, increase public donations, and strengthen the Federal Election Commission. The analysts who made this reform (some of whom are from the Federal Election Commission) have been careful to address all the concerns the public may have, including its cost and constitutionality.
The Grassroots Democracy Act also focuses on congressional campaigns. The fact that all of these reforms start at that level show the deep roots of the problem. In order to limit the role money plays in politics, we have to start at the bottom. There are several reasons for this, including that it's easier to fix the "smaller" problems and then work up. A success at the congressional level will also rally support for reforms at the presidential campaign level. Such a success or a move towards success would also help with some of the skepticism that people have about limiting financing.
I started writing my product paper. The intro and the conclusion will probably be the hardest.
Also I spent some time in class contacting judges in order to pick a presentation date.
It will be difficult to gauge the results in a national election because "clean elections" are only being implemented on lower level elections. The biggest problem so far, predictably, has been securing enough funding for candidates to run. Several other candidates also expressed the concern that they would not secure enough money and did not run. Local level elections simply do not garner the amount of attention or interest that the higher up elections do, so this is a predictable problem. However, it does lower the confidence of the public in clean funding. The Fair Elections Now Act is trying to mitigate this problem by requiring that broadcast time be cheaper for candidates running using public financing.
The American Anti-corruption Act first of all has a very nice website. It seeks to prevent members of Congress from taking money from industries that they regulate, limit Super PAC contributions, prevent the use of job offers as "bribes", limit lobbying, mandate transparency in funding, increase public donations, and strengthen the Federal Election Commission. The analysts who made this reform (some of whom are from the Federal Election Commission) have been careful to address all the concerns the public may have, including its cost and constitutionality.
The Grassroots Democracy Act also focuses on congressional campaigns. The fact that all of these reforms start at that level show the deep roots of the problem. In order to limit the role money plays in politics, we have to start at the bottom. There are several reasons for this, including that it's easier to fix the "smaller" problems and then work up. A success at the congressional level will also rally support for reforms at the presidential campaign level. Such a success or a move towards success would also help with some of the skepticism that people have about limiting financing.
I started writing my product paper. The intro and the conclusion will probably be the hardest.
Also I spent some time in class contacting judges in order to pick a presentation date.
Friday, January 23, 2015
Correa Pep Talks, Judge Hunt, Product
Mr. Correa gave us some advice, scheduling stuff, and a pep talk until 11:52 am today.
The final presentation schedule (they're all in April), rank (mine went up!), and presentation grades (94) came out today.
The presentation will be 15-25 minutes and the judges will be given our product and blog.
This report from the Census details voter turnout in 2008, which was at all time high before dropping exponentially later in 2012.
To-do list (this is long because we had less class time today):
Begin the product paper
Look at using a brochure or a website for part of the product
Post in the TAG group on Facebook to look for former campaign volunteers
Schedule the presentation with one of my judges (1/2 done)
Watch the other saved TED talk that I have
Give the family pics that Correa needs for banquet (5/6 done)
Research other organizations that campaign for reform that I can mention (1/2 done)
I might want to even start getting together a basic idea for my PowerPoint final presentation (decided to start the paper first)
Ask my mentor about her opinion on same day registration (will email her with judge updates)
Sunday update: In addition to working on the to do list I was given a suggestion that would help me with the finance part of my thesis (site link here). Also I have some judge leads to chase down, thanks to the TAG Facebook page. Also pictures of me from freshman year are scarce (probably because I always ran away from cameras) so I haven't found the last photo to send to Mr. Correa yet.
Monday update: The TED talk skillfully explains how much money influences who gets to run in the general election, and thus the outcome. It makes a strong case for cleaner campaign funding. It references the fair elections now act, the American anti-corruption act, and the grassroots democracy act.
The final presentation schedule (they're all in April), rank (mine went up!), and presentation grades (94) came out today.
The presentation will be 15-25 minutes and the judges will be given our product and blog.
This report from the Census details voter turnout in 2008, which was at all time high before dropping exponentially later in 2012.
To-do list (this is long because we had less class time today):
Look at using a brochure or a website for part of the product
Schedule the presentation with one of my judges (1/2 done)
Give the family pics that Correa needs for banquet (5/6 done)
Research other organizations that campaign for reform that I can mention (1/2 done)
I might want to even start getting together a basic idea for my PowerPoint final presentation (decided to start the paper first)
Ask my mentor about her opinion on same day registration (will email her with judge updates)
Sunday update: In addition to working on the to do list I was given a suggestion that would help me with the finance part of my thesis (site link here). Also I have some judge leads to chase down, thanks to the TAG Facebook page. Also pictures of me from freshman year are scarce (probably because I always ran away from cameras) so I haven't found the last photo to send to Mr. Correa yet.
Monday update: The TED talk skillfully explains how much money influences who gets to run in the general election, and thus the outcome. It makes a strong case for cleaner campaign funding. It references the fair elections now act, the American anti-corruption act, and the grassroots democracy act.
Wednesday, January 21, 2015
Day 43: Judges, Voter Turnout
In the wake of the State of the Union address I am once again hit by the importance of my thesis. Political divisions and pettiness were both mentioned by the President last night, and I hope to reduce both of these through my ideas.
I have one judge that should be able to come. I just have to confirm once the schedule comes out.
The other judges are the tricky part, since I have to find past campaign volunteers. That is not a permanent job so I can't just find them on certain websites (for example, with my first mentor I searched for educators working with UTD and SMU).
Currently refining the outline so that I can start writing the final paper.
Another product that I want to do would either be a website for reforms or a flyer/pamphlet that would focus on the best reforms and what the common person can do to help push them through.
I will probably be researching other reform campaigns that I can tell people to join. Those movements probably have websites, which is why I'm leaning towards a informative document that has infographics in it.
The TED talk I watched over the weekend had a really cool idea: it involved the use of "encrypted" ballots that were perforated so the voter could take it home. The code on it could then be used to track the vote on a computer. Essentially all the codes would be put on a database and voters could check their votes and verify the election results themselves. Since the ballots are encoded, the voters' identities and choices would still be secret, yet the process would become much more transparent. Aside from being a creative and novel idea, this concept could help increase voter confidence significantly, especially since the aftermath of the 2000 election. Additionally, since the inventor is British, the encryption is suitable for instant runoff voting (meaning the candidates can be ranked).
A huge part of thesis is increasing voter turnout, along with increasing the amount of knowledge people have of the candidates at election time.
This study by the Pew Research Center has some insights into the voter turnout problem:
Six-in-ten intermittent voters say they sometimes don’t know enough about candidates to vote compared with 44% of regular voters the single most important attitudinal difference between intermittent and regular voters identified in the survey.
Regular voters are more likely than intermittent voters to say they have been contacted by a candidate or political group encouraging them to vote. They also admit to being bored with politics.
People who are not registered to vote say they are not confident in the process and are more likely to say they are too busy to vote than regular voters. Most of them also say they have moved recently.
Notes for today:
I did everything that was on my to-do list so that's a good sign.
I think I should look at more TED talks for ideas revolving around election reforms and technology, they've given pretty good ideas so far. Plus the older ones may have already been implemented in other countries so I can then look at the results.
I have one judge that should be able to come. I just have to confirm once the schedule comes out.
The other judges are the tricky part, since I have to find past campaign volunteers. That is not a permanent job so I can't just find them on certain websites (for example, with my first mentor I searched for educators working with UTD and SMU).
Currently refining the outline so that I can start writing the final paper.
Another product that I want to do would either be a website for reforms or a flyer/pamphlet that would focus on the best reforms and what the common person can do to help push them through.
I will probably be researching other reform campaigns that I can tell people to join. Those movements probably have websites, which is why I'm leaning towards a informative document that has infographics in it.
The TED talk I watched over the weekend had a really cool idea: it involved the use of "encrypted" ballots that were perforated so the voter could take it home. The code on it could then be used to track the vote on a computer. Essentially all the codes would be put on a database and voters could check their votes and verify the election results themselves. Since the ballots are encoded, the voters' identities and choices would still be secret, yet the process would become much more transparent. Aside from being a creative and novel idea, this concept could help increase voter confidence significantly, especially since the aftermath of the 2000 election. Additionally, since the inventor is British, the encryption is suitable for instant runoff voting (meaning the candidates can be ranked).
A huge part of thesis is increasing voter turnout, along with increasing the amount of knowledge people have of the candidates at election time.
This study by the Pew Research Center has some insights into the voter turnout problem:
Six-in-ten intermittent voters say they sometimes don’t know enough about candidates to vote compared with 44% of regular voters the single most important attitudinal difference between intermittent and regular voters identified in the survey.
Regular voters are more likely than intermittent voters to say they have been contacted by a candidate or political group encouraging them to vote. They also admit to being bored with politics.
People who are not registered to vote say they are not confident in the process and are more likely to say they are too busy to vote than regular voters. Most of them also say they have moved recently.
Notes for today:
I did everything that was on my to-do list so that's a good sign.
I think I should look at more TED talks for ideas revolving around election reforms and technology, they've given pretty good ideas so far. Plus the older ones may have already been implemented in other countries so I can then look at the results.
Friday, January 16, 2015
Outline, Media things
Working on the outline for my final paper right now.
Now that I've worked significantly on the aspect of changing the voting system so that every vote counts and it's easier to vote, I need to work on voter knowledge and perception. This mainly originates in the media through ads, televised debates, polls, and news reporters. I want to suggest some changes that will allow the voters to get real information about the candidates' platforms and viability, instead of the constant feed of slandering and attacking that they currently receive.
I would like there to be a greater focus on policy ideas, where experts in certain fields analyze the candidates' platforms and project how successful they will be, as well as the hassles that will be involved in carrying them out.
Some statistics about media coverage that I looked at today:
In 2012, coverage of the candidate policy positions comprised the second-largest category of coverage, 22%, similar to 2008. [x]
Reminder section:
I have to pick up transcripts and a rec letter from Mr. Templet on Tuesday
Need to watch the TED talk on voter fraud that has been saved for some time, also should re-watch the one about click baiting
Research more on the formulation of the presidential platform (who comes up with it, is it checked for efficacy, etc.)
Continue the hunt for judges (I have contacted professors of political science at local universities, I need to work more on finding past campaign volunteers)
Now that I've worked significantly on the aspect of changing the voting system so that every vote counts and it's easier to vote, I need to work on voter knowledge and perception. This mainly originates in the media through ads, televised debates, polls, and news reporters. I want to suggest some changes that will allow the voters to get real information about the candidates' platforms and viability, instead of the constant feed of slandering and attacking that they currently receive.
I would like there to be a greater focus on policy ideas, where experts in certain fields analyze the candidates' platforms and project how successful they will be, as well as the hassles that will be involved in carrying them out.
Some statistics about media coverage that I looked at today:
In 2012, coverage of the candidate policy positions comprised the second-largest category of coverage, 22%, similar to 2008. [x]
"rather than a window to examine the candidates’ ideas at more length, the debates became a frame about campaign momentum to a greater degree than the rest of the campaign." (same source as above)
Democrats who thought Obama was Muslim were less likely to vote for him [x]
69% of voters are skeptical about the veracity of political ads, regardless of if the ads were positive or negative [x]
Ad campaigns were found to be more negative in swing states [x]
Campaign ads and their effect (NPR)
Who doesn't vote and why (poll) found this a little late, might need to talk more about it next class.
Update: people who don't vote are more likely to be single and admit to not knowing much about candidates and being "bored with politics". They are less educated and less affluent than consistent voters. They also express less confidence in the government and cited reasons for not voting/registering that included moving often and not having enough time.
I spent longer than I should have trying to get access to this study (How Large and Long-lasting Are the Persuasive Effects of Televised Campaign Ads? Results from a Randomized Field Experiment)
I haven't gotten in yet, but this article summarized what it was saying. Ads have a small but powerful short term effect, and can boost ratings in polls. Since horse-race analysis is the biggest proponent of media coverage in elections, this is an important effect to have.
Reminder section:
I have to pick up transcripts and a rec letter from Mr. Templet on Tuesday
Need to watch the TED talk on voter fraud that has been saved for some time, also should re-watch the one about click baiting
Research more on the formulation of the presidential platform (who comes up with it, is it checked for efficacy, etc.)
Continue the hunt for judges (I have contacted professors of political science at local universities, I need to work more on finding past campaign volunteers)
Wednesday, January 14, 2015
Last Day of Presentations
After today I'll be back to my regular blogging. We had some great presentations today that also reminded of what other project ideas are out there, particularly those concerning technology.
Update: I worked more on my outline today. In some areas I need to research more reform areas, and in others I really need to not have any more because I already have a lot of information. Over the next two months I plan to be really evening out my data a bit more to have a comprehensive reform plan.
Update: I worked more on my outline today. In some areas I need to research more reform areas, and in others I really need to not have any more because I already have a lot of information. Over the next two months I plan to be really evening out my data a bit more to have a comprehensive reform plan.
Monday, January 12, 2015
Presentations Day 2
We had some great presentations today as well. Our class seems to have made some progress in their theses so it's cool to see what they've learned and how far they've come. It's interesting to see what different people do to make their presentations connect with the audience. The musical ones usually have audio, play their instrument, or bring something to show the class. Others have statistics and personal stories that allow the audience to understand why their topic is important.
Have to brainstorm more ideas for products and how to best present my information. I also have to add more to the aspect of public action (what an average person do to bring awareness and push through reform ideas).
I am currently contacting judges. There is interest but there is definitely a time issue.
Today I also started my outline for a final paper. The final presentation is a little confusing, but hopefully I'll know more about how it works towards the end of this month.
Update: Currently looking for senior quotes and getting more things together for my thesis product.
Have to brainstorm more ideas for products and how to best present my information. I also have to add more to the aspect of public action (what an average person do to bring awareness and push through reform ideas).
I am currently contacting judges. There is interest but there is definitely a time issue.
Today I also started my outline for a final paper. The final presentation is a little confusing, but hopefully I'll know more about how it works towards the end of this month.
Update: Currently looking for senior quotes and getting more things together for my thesis product.
Thursday, January 8, 2015
Midterm Presentation
I present first in the round, so I'm finished already! I think I stayed in the time limit and managed to talk about some of the reforms I researched (both the ones that were good ideas and those that didn't work out) so now onward to product formation and the hunt for judges.
Tuesday, January 6, 2015
Winter Break is Over
Currently hunting for thesis judges (mostly looking for political science professors and campaign staff).
Also, Mr. Correa wants 6 pictures of us including one family photo, so I have to find those later. Before someone in my class tries to find worse ones.
Concerning campaign funding, I'm thinking the best way to reduce the money variable is through the structure of the primaries. Then the poorer candidates can get public funding.
Also found a report on campaign finance reform.
On the IRV post from the last class:
There seems to be a discrepancy among opinions regarding IRV and technology. There are reports saying that the voting/tabulating methods cannot accommodate it and others say that it can. Either way new machines will have to be purchased and that adds to the money variable.
Again, the report points out the frequency of plurality wins, which undermine the principles of democracy.
Also, Mr. Correa wants 6 pictures of us including one family photo, so I have to find those later. Before someone in my class tries to find worse ones.
Concerning campaign funding, I'm thinking the best way to reduce the money variable is through the structure of the primaries. Then the poorer candidates can get public funding.
Also found a report on campaign finance reform.
On the IRV post from the last class:
There seems to be a discrepancy among opinions regarding IRV and technology. There are reports saying that the voting/tabulating methods cannot accommodate it and others say that it can. Either way new machines will have to be purchased and that adds to the money variable.
Again, the report points out the frequency of plurality wins, which undermine the principles of democracy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)