IRV continues, it's still snowing...again (TEXAS WEATHER!!!)

It's snowing right now.
Currently addressing some things regarding the IRV and the cost of new voting machines. After this I will probably discuss the special ballots from a previous TED talk (the ones that allow any voter to verify the election results, increasing transparency and confidence in the system).
I will also have to transition into voter registration at some point, and figure out where to discuss campaign advertising and media/voter knowledge. Voter knowledge will be a particularly depressing section, and will probably feature data showing how misinformed large sectors of the public are (polls and studies showing how little people know about campaign fund sources, several polls showing that people still think Obama is Muslim, other polls showing that this opinion actually changes their vote, etc.)
The paper has reached 4 pages in Calibri font, single-spaced (with no cover page or works cited and I'm not anywhere near done) so this is probably gonna meet whatever length requirements are issued in the future.
Also I will be spending some time hunting down mysteriously vanished sources (I remembered reading them but apparently did not save them anywhere).

Update: I have so far concluded the IRV section of the paper and have transitioned into the voter registration section. Here I will be discussing Michigan's qualified voter file system. Also helping Michelle with some difficulties.. one of the sources she needs is in German so if anyone knows where the English version is please tell. Also I think I solved the provisional voting/same day registration struggle. I will have states choose which one they want, like they do with primaries and caucuses.

Update: Mr. Correa is throwing office supplies and as a result of the situation in that side of the room Dante might switch to refugee status and sit here... Tschiemer attributes this behavior to the death of Leonard Nimoy. More news to follow.

This is going to sound irrelevant, but we are watching House of Cards later which might remind me of other flaws in our political system that I need to address. This would help illustrate the corruptibility of the government and the importance of political campaigns to such candidates. The fictional representation gives the audience a false view of how the US government truly functions but gives rough insights to the true processes. (Jesus wrote those last two sentences when I left my computer unattended. Pretty good, huh?)

Saturday update: Stumbled on this disturbing piece by NPR about racial discrimination in elections. While it's not as obvious or blatant as poll taxes and quizzes, this subtle discrepancy between treatment of minorities by election officials raises serious concerns.

Paper Continues...

I am currently discussing electoral misfire, IRV, etc. in the paper. It's weird addressing plurality wins now instead of in the nomination process part of the paper since it has become unusual for more than 2 candidates to run in the general election. I am considering talking about IRV earlier because of this.
In this section of the paper, (I am discussing IRV right now) I will have to cover both the predicted
and actual positive points of IRV as well as address some perceived negatives. Possibly I will also need to compare it to other systems of voting.

Positives:
Reduced negative campaigning (reference this from a previous blog post:An estimated $4 billion was spent on the 2014 midterm elections, with $1 million being spent on campaign ads (half of these ads were negative). [x] [x])
Majority win
No cost for runoff election
Increased turnout in U.S. cities that held instant runoff elections

Negatives and counterattacks:
Voting procedure will be too difficult to understand (This study concludes that minorities are more likely to support IRV than the conventional runoff voting in that election and that it was reported as being easy to understand by voters of all races. Also, people in Australia, Ireland, and elsewhere can understand it since there are low residual ballot rates, so why shouldn't people in America?)
Voting machine technology will be too expensive (first of all it's a necessary cost for all the benefit it brings. Secondly, if it becomes part of an act there will be federal funds allocated for the purpose of procuring new machines, such as with the Help America Vote Act).

Also, I registered for AP exams last week.
Reminder to buy talent show tickets and DVD ($15)

Snow Day

Well it's a snow day but we're so close to the end I can't really just take a break.
I have concluded the campaign funding section (so far, you never know when new info will come) and have entered the actual voting process, where I will discuss electoral misfire, IRV, voting registration, and some of the tech solutions I have.
I also submitted a scholarship the other day.

Paper, Funding

(We have a sub today. Hi, Ms. Sanders.)
Spent more time writing the paper today. Campaign finance is hard to discuss. The two viable solutions are making sure underfunded candidates can get money and keeping wealthy candidates from outspending everyone else to win. So the two solutions at the forefront of that idea are clean funding and spending limits. Clean funding doesn't have a ton of support but there seems to be no other way to solve the problem. Excessive limits on spending curtails free speech as decided in the Citizens' United ruling. While half of Americans support campaign finance reform as shown in the poll I linked earlier, many aren't sure whether they would support public funding.
Another issue is that the funding problem is so deep rooted reform has to start from the bottom (local and congressional elections) before we can even think about fixing it in the presidential elections.
For this I am primarily looking to the American Anti-Corruption Act, which has passed in Tallahassee, Florida and hopes to eventually reform congressional elections. As I noted earlier, its provisions hold up constitutionally, which is a concern with other finance reform acts [x].

To-do:
Find the remaining senior banquet pic
Write more of the paper
Continue the final presentation PowerPoint
Think of ways to augment the product paper
Honor society pics today
Class meeting tomorrow

Final Presentation, Paper

My presentation date has been set for April 22nd at 11:00 am! (Apologies to Michelle, who apparently wanted the same date).
Working more on the paper today (of course) and also looking at the product standards more to see what else I can add into my final product.
The product should:
Present new ideas and change the understanding of the field

• I will do this by presenting the reforms together as a group of changes that will affect the system at every point in time. Most analysts propose one reform centered on the electoral college or the voting registration process; my project hopes to combine them to achieve a greater effect on the system as a whole. I hope to get professionals to see the presidential election system as one that has flaws that are reinforced early on, before candidates even choose to run; the problems do not just appear at the general election.

Propose innovative solutions and new applications

• I primarily hope to do this with my use of technology in solving many problems in the voting process. The TED talks have really helped in this regard, as I can see examples of innovative solutions that are being implemented in other parts of the world. I also hope to implement local things (such as Michigan's sophisticated voter registration system) on a nationwide level.

Demonstrate extensive understanding of the field and its themes

• The depth of my research and the wide range of reforms should showcase my understanding of the field.

Provide unique and sophisticated analysis of the trends and connections to other fields

• I will focus on drawing connections to fields such as advertising, finance, technology, social media, etc.

Make a difference in the lives of self and others

• In improving a system that affects everyone living here and even people living abroad I hope to make a difference in others lives and in my own. My project will help citizens become more connected and involved with their government and thus shape the impact the bureaucracy has on our lives.

Still in the campaign finance part of my product paper. There has been a trend in increasing focus on this topic. Polls from 1997 show that it was a non issue [x], and even voters as late as the 2008 presidential elections were not very aware of where or how their candidates were funded [x].
Gallup put the issue very well: "Campaign finance reform is like world peace: Everyone thinks it's a great idea and supports efforts to secure it, but almost no one expects it to happen."

Reminders:
We have a class meeting on Thursday

Paper, Research, another to-do list

Today is half for data collecting and half for continuing to write the paper. I looked for Gallup polls today since I had Pew Research center ones from last time. I will transfer my notes here as soon as I have time!
Voting and technology TED talk
Pia Mancini discusses the election system in Argentina and its outdated practices. Her team designed democracyos.org as a bridge between citizens and their representatives. Every new proposal that congress receives is translated into plain language so citizens can keep up with their government. A person could then vote on the site (yes, no, or abstaining) as to how they feel about the project that was introduced. However, none of Argentina's political parties were interested in using this data to see how their platform was aligned or not aligned with the ideas and desires of its constituents. Mancini's team then formed its own political party and won a considerable amount of the vote for the fact that it had only been in existence for two months. This lead to Argentina's plan to implement democracyos as a way for Congress to connect with the citizens.
"Coding a better government" TED talk
Jennifer Pahlka talks about founding "Code for America" which matches software geniuses with cities to create apps and reboot local services. While I don't think I can really incorporate the ideas into my thesis it is a great way to think about getting citizens involved with local government in ways that are faster than turning to the bureaucracy.
Open Source government TED talk
Former deputy CTO at the White House Beth Noveck pushes for opening up government data to allow citizens to participate more actively and frequently in the process of improving civic institutions. She cites crowdsourcing websites and initiatives across the world that publish data for public comment and thus help cut spending and fund the building of infrastructure. I hope this idea can be applied to campaign finance, so citizens can see where their candidates are really getting money from and also to the idea of legislation and debate, as seen in Mancini's talk.
Data (Gallup poll): roughly half of Americans support public financing for federal elections
(Gallup poll) Widespread support for campaign finance reform

(Sorry. I like TED talks. They present new ideas and often combine them with technology. Also don't have an agenda or a link to either political party or ideology)

To-do:
Pester one of my possible judges more (in a friendly manner of course)
Start the final presentation PowerPoint
Find/dig up more old data
Somehow find a family pic for the senior banquet...

Saturday update: Added my TED talk notes, still working with judges. Also, I learned a strange thing about caucuses: both primaries and caucuses have really low turnout in general, but especially so compared to the main election. However, they appear to have moderately good demographic representation. The bigger problem is that participation widely varies among states (sometimes by margins of 16%). This means that what I need to focus on is raising turnout in caucuses and primaries instead of revamping the system. I believe that is definitely doable with the rotating regional primary reform (which allows the state to keep its chosen nomination process of either caucus or primary in spite of the fact that the name does seem to imply otherwise).

Paper, Sourcing, To-Do

I had to put the two articles from last time into my sources to use when my paper gets to IRV. I am currently finishing the part of my paper detailing the nomination process related reforms. I am a little stuck as to what I should talk about next. I was trying to talk about media but I think I will go on to campaign funding until I get a more solid idea of what I want to talk about in terms of media perception and election coverage.
To start on the campaign funding section, I am beginning with the concerns of the "party of non voters" discussed in the Pew Research polls I collected. I will also discuss the amounts of money spent and its sources, as well as what sort of influence those sources (who are limited to a few rich people) have on the process.

Looking for more polls to support stance on campaign funding:
Opinions of funding
Too much money in campaigns

Update: I am beginning the part of my paper that covers election funding. Also some time in class was spent dealing with and helping Michelle deal with technological difficulties...

To-do:
Contact more judges in case of schedule conflicts with the current ones and follow up with one of the possible judges who hasn't responded
Work on the paper out of school
Draft for the brochure
Look for more polls in here: [x]
Also look for polls from Gallup

Funding, Product Paper

Finding some sources to support my stance on large amounts of campaign funding:
About $7 billion total was spent during the 2012 presidential election, according to the Federal Election Commission. This was even more money than was predicted ($6 billion). [x]

An estimated $4 billion was spent on the 2014 midterm elections, with $1 million being spent on campaign ads (half of these ads were negative). [x] [x]
Today I ran into a concerning problem called "dark money" which is becoming the next shady, behind the curtains way to give money to political candidates (in the family of soft money and super PACs, etc.). Dark money is used to support candidates and is given through non-tax deductible donations to 501c non-profit organizations who are not legally considered to be political. These donations do not have to be disclosed and thus make it harder to track candidate spending as well as the source of the money. As more and more of these underhand money swaps occur during elections, I am becoming more convinced to address the problem of campaign finance; the challenge is finding a viable solution. As I am currently discussing the nomination process in my paper, I do still have time to solidify ideas regarding clean campaigns.

I ended up running into some articles that address popular concerns about IRV. This article backs up the idea that IRV would lower negative campaigns by forcing candidates to work together to gain second choice positions. This study concludes that minorities are more likely to support IRV than the conventional runoff voting in that election and that it was reported as being easy to understand by voters of all races. The year it was implemented, turnout increased citywide by 2.7 times, and in the city’s six most racially and socio-economically diverse neighborhoods turnout quadrupled in the 2005 citywide election.

Senior updates:
I paid my dues and the yearbook money and all that
I can't find the last picture for the senior banquet list (I guess my family doesn't take pictures all together often)

Paper, Plurality Wins

I continued writing my paper today. Because of this I had to research some statistics about plurality wins:
Fifteen presidential elections have resulted in the election of someone who received a plurality vote (they did not win the majority of the vote). Three candidates have won two terms with plurality wins. [x]

Additionally, plurality wins occur as early as the primaries, which means that the system has deep roots and will be hard to fix. This is especially concerning because primaries tend to have lower turnout than the general election anyway and for the candidates to still not win a majority of the few people who are voting is suspicious to the party of non voters, who take this as further reason to not participate. The idea that a candidate can win primaries and the general election without a majority vote severely undermines democracy and lowers faith in the election system.
I am currently discussing the IRV and the modified rotating regional lottery plan in the paper.

It is still difficult to find ways to highlight some side issues that do not really directly affect my thesis but help it achieve its purpose in other ways (felon disenfranchisement, etc.) but most of my other topics are in the outline and I think I should be able to finish the paper in a timely manner. Going over my old sources and remembering everything I want to put in is a little difficult, but with my Google docs the second I remember something I want to add I can make a note of it in the outline so hopefully I get in everything I wanted to talk about.

Update on judges: one of my prospects thinks his wife might be better suited, so he's confirming dates with her.

Senior Things, Paper, Judges

Confirming presentation dates with judges, hopefully will have that settled by the end of this week!

Getting details from another voter turnout report for 2012:
Only a little over half the voting age population voted in 2012 (57.5%), which was down from 2008 (62.3%).
This was despite the estimated $6 billion spent on campaigns and the 8 million person increase in the voting eligible population.
Additionally most of the high turnout that contributes to the average came from swing states, which combined with the lower turnout (some as little as 30-40%) from the other states lead to the little over half average.

Gaps between primary turnout in certain states certainly exist as well. New Hampshire’s position as the first state to hold its primary boosted its turnout to approximately 50% in 2008, putting it as much as 30 percentage points ahead of other states. Strangely, several studies have found that demographic representation is increasing in both primaries and caucuses, despite really low turnout in comparison to the general election. Therefore the problem is becoming one of disparate turnout between states, a problem that is only exacerbated in the issue of "swing states" in the general election.

A troubling hurdle when it comes to the nomination process is the lack of data. Many studies are available for demographic representation and turnout for every state when it comes to the general election, but data like that for primaries and caucuses is difficult to find, and for some reason a lot of it comes from really far back (1972). That reason is probably the importance of the primaries for the Democratic party in that year.

I also worked on my product paper today. Currently I am in the section that discusses the nomination process and its related reforms, so I am retrieving the important data from my folder in Google Drive.

Senior stuff to-do:
Buy yearbook
Send banquet pictures