It's Time for Public Funding of Elections

In America, our elections are run by the millionaires and billionaires. During elections, voters can contribute to their candidate, or they can donate to a super PAC. What is a super PAC? Well, that is the thing that is destroying our elections.

Basically, a candidate has a maximum donation he can receive from a potential donor (the amount is $2,700 in case you were wondering). However, a super PAC can receive unlimited donations.

Super PACs are basically an "independent" PAC that usually center around one main candidate. These PACs can receive unlimited donation amounts from donors. So, let's take one example.

Bob is running for President. He registers at 5% in the polls, which is the last place in the polls of the candidates in his party running for President. He has received only $50,000 and is considering dropping out of the race.

Meet the Super PAC Change America, a pro-Bob Super PAC. They meet in a closed room with several billionaires. The next day, 3 of the billionaires each pledge donations of 1.2 million dollars to Change America.

Change America can't donate their newfound 3.6 million dollars to Bob directly. They can only donate $5,000 to him. So, instead, they use it for themselves to promote Bob.

Change America air multiple ads across the United States of America. 3 weeks later, the formerly unpopular Bob is at the top of his party's polls with 53%.

Even though he had bad policies and he was unpopular, a couple donations from a few billionaires changed the standings and turned the tables dramatically. Bob essentially was catapulted to the top by these people.

Now, these people helped Bob get elected President. What would they expect in return? Maybe, they would ask a few favors as to who should be put into Bob's cabinet or which bills he should veto or sign. Bob would have to oblige, because he would want to win re-election and their support is integral to his success.

This system doesn't represent democracy. It represents elections where candidates are puppets. The real players are the millionaires and billionaires behind the stage pulling the strings and getting their candidate propelled to national success and fame.

We have to fix this system. A couple years ago, some of the limitations were removed in the Citizens United vs. FEC case under the guise of "it's just freedom of speech". We need to fix this system in order to actually experience the freedom of opinion. This is one of many hurdles we have in fixing elections, but unlike other hurdles - this can be removed.

Time for Bi-Party Debates?

The 2016 presidential election has multiple debates within each party before the primaries and caucuses in each party. However, what if we had debates before the primaries and caucuses with candidates from both parties in them.

Imagine a debate stage with 10 candidates. The top 5 Democrats and top 5 Republicans (granted, the Democrat field is smaller, but having the same amount from each party would make it more interesting and 10 worked for the first Republican debate) in the presidential election would go on stage and debate it out.

This strategy might actually work. The Republicans, anyway, were talking bad about Hillary in their 1st debate and in general this election and the Democrats have been attacking the Republicans. What if you combined both of them on a single stage?

It would be harder to personally attack Hillary Clinton when she is standing a few spaces across from you and ready to level a counterattack. Meanwhile, you could show the voters of your party that you can take care of both the inner party problems and counter any rebuttals from the other party.

This would show the potential voters which candidate could actually make a point and explain it to someone on the other side of the political spectrum while convincing members of their own party. That is a trait that should be considered when each party chooses their nominee in their respective conventions in the summer of 2016.

This system could work out. Maybe about a week before the Iowa Caucus or New Hampshire Primary, one of these debates could be held in one of these states. That way, the voters will get to personally see each of the major candidates and then know who to vote for by the end of the debate.

However, this probably wouldn't work out due to differences between the DNC and RNC and the fact that each party already have debates around the same time.

Come the 2020 or 2024 election, though, I would like to see this system implemented. It will be a better judge of the candidates than any normal inter-party debate ever could be.

Why the Republicans Won't Win the Latino Vote

The Republicans in recent elections have been notorious for not winning the minority vote. There are a few exceptions, but that seems to be their fatal flaw - not winning the vote of the poor, the female vote, and minority ethnicity vote.

This election won't turn out to be much different. Immigration issues are a big deal in America and the Republicans seem to be turning down any chances of wining the Latino vote despite having to Cuban-American Senators running for President (Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz)

Donald Trump probably started this all in his opening speech when he stated that the Mexican government were sending their worst criminals across the border into America.

This statement is wrong in so many ways, it's difficult to tell where to start.

A lot of the illegal immigrants aren't Mexican - they also come from Nicaragua, Guatemala, and other parts of Central America. One way to alienate the Latin American voters - calling them all Mexicans.

Also, most of the Mexican (and other Latin America) immigrants come to America as legal immigrants, not illegally. Another way to alienate the Latin American voters - saying they all come illegally just because of a few anomalies.

 Crime is not only caused by illegal immigration. The USA has a lot of homegrown crime and although it is easy to blame it on the immigrants, we are all responsible for this. Also, a vast majority of illegal immigrants are innocent people who crossed the border to have a better life.  The final way to alienate Latin American voters - generalize them as criminals.

He is also making a potential enemy of the Mexican government for blaming them for the current immigration crisis. How could they be responsible for the independent decisions made by not only their citizens, but citizens of other countries?

It's not just Donald Trump making these offensive statements. Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, and other prominent Republicans said that they were against a path of citizenship for the illegal immigrants. Scott Walker was only a little better when he said, "No amnesty, if someone wants to be a citizen, they have to go back to their country of origin and get in line behind everyone else who's waiting."

Some of these so-called "illegal aliens" were born in the US or lived here since they were a child. The US may be the only home they remember. Others fled to the US for a reason, to have a better life

Think, Republican candidates, think. These immigrants are just like the Pilgrims we glorify in our education. They came here for a better life for themselves and their children. Why would we send them back to their country of origin which they obviously left for a reason?

Coming the 2016 election, the Republicans will not be much different from the previous elections in that they will not win the significant Latino vote (the biggest minority group in our nation). They will just be ceding the Latino vote to the Democrats once again like they've been doing for a long time and if the continue this way, the Republican Party could fade away like their predecessors the Federalists and the Whigs.

Why Socialism is the American Dream

With the unexpectedly successful presidential candidacy of Senator Bernie Sanders, there is some question on what he means when he calls himself a socialist. No doubt there would be some post-Cold War fear that socialist means communist as many people have made the two terms into synonyms. However, that is not true.

On the political spectrum, if you start at the very right, you have Fascism (think Mussolini and Hitler). Then, you get into the Tea Party and Libertarian (think Ted Cruz and Rand Paul) movements. You move a bit more to the left, you get Standard Republican (most of the Republicans, like Jeb Bush and Scott Walker). Move a bit more to the left, you get Moderate Republican (like George Pataki). Any more left, and you reach the center of the political spectrum - the Independents (a mix of both views - not many politicians fit this view. An early 2000s Trump could fit this view.)

Move to the left a bit more and you get Moderate Democrat (like Jim Webb). A bit more to the left and you get Standard Democrat (most of the Democrats - Hillary Clinton is 3/4 the way between Moderate and Standard Democrat). Move to the left some more, and you get Socialism (Sen. Sanders). Any more to the left, and that's when you get Communism (Fidel Castro, Vladimir Lenin, Josef Stalin, etc.)

Comparing socialism to communism, is like comparing the libertarians and tea partiers to fascists. They aren't that extreme, they are just a bit more extreme than the standards of their party.

Socialism isn't that bad. One of the main parts of socialism is universal health coverage. That means free healthcare for all individuals, regardless of their economic status. Instead of having people who don't make much money not being able to get treatment because of a lack of money, it lets anyone get treatment without having to pay money.

However, this would come directly from our taxes. This is not that bad, though. Think of it as like another Social Security tax - you are paying for your future self basically and helping others also. Plus, another main part of socialism is increasing the taxes on the richest 1% of America to make sure that wealth is evenly distributed without making it that people just get money while not working hard.

Another part of socialism is the minimum wage. Sanders advocates for a $15 minimum wage. Arguments against a higher minimum wage include that it will make people less motivated to work harder or that it will make it harder for small business to employ more employees.

However, you could make a national minimum wage a bit less, like $12 or Obama's proposed $10.10. Then, in areas with a higher cost of living, you could slowly raise their minimum wage. The minimum wage doesn't make people less motivated to work either. In fact, it is the opposite.

$15 would be the bare minimum and if they work harder, they could gain even more. The entire idea of a minimum wage is to create a minimum total that ensures people who work a lot of hours in a week won't be under the poverty line. 

As Sanders stated, "Nobody who works 40 hours a week should be living in poverty."

I agree to that and I don't know why anyone would disagree.

There are other aspects to socialism, such as having public colleges tuition free and focusing on the reformation of criminals more than the punishment of criminals. However, these three concepts represent the main focus of socialism. Everyone should have a chance to succeed in life if they work hard, no matter which socioeconomic status they belong on.  The American Dream is basically on the same lines. No matter where you come from, if you work hard, you can succeed in America. 

The Democrat's Dream: A 3rd Party Trump

Donald Trump, real estate billionaire, former host of Celebrity Apprentice, and the Republican Party's frontrunner in a crowded 17 candidate field, has stated multiple times that he is willing to run as an Independent or 3rd Party candidate.

The first time he stated this was more of a threat. He thought the Republican Party was not treating him nicely, and if they continued to do this he would just break away from the party and run as a 3rd party candidate (in which we are including as being an Independent)

The most recent time came in the GOP Debate. The moderator asked the candidates to raise their hand if they wouldn't pledge to run as a third party candidate in the case they didn't win the Republican nomination. Only one man raised his hand. Trump.

In the case he doesn't win the nomination, he is still considered a long shot candidate, or feels he is not being treated fairly by the Republicans, Trump apparently will run as a 3rd party candidate.

This would be the Democratic Party's dream. With controversy over Clinton's email server and with possible worry over having a socialist president in Bernie Sanders, or the fact that the only Democrat candidate under 60 so far is Martin O'Malley (aged 52), the Democrats could've feared losing this election. However, this would save their election chances.

Trump is not a conservative. Nor is he a liberal. He is somewhere between and he will definitely take away some of the Democrat vote. However, he would almost certainly split the Republican vote. We could see a repeat of the US Presidential election of 1912.

In 1912, ex-President Theodore Roosevelt challenged the incumbent President William Howard Taft for the Republican nomination. Shockingly, the popular Roosevelt lost to his former protege Taft.

He decided to run as a candidate for the Progressive (or Bull-Moose) Party in the 1912 election. The Democrat candidate was Thomas Woodrow Wilson from New Jersey.

Now, we have to take in mind that all of the 4 major candidates were liberal. Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft were both Progressives and Woodrow Wilson was between a very leftist Democrat and a Socialist. Socialist Party candidate Eugene V Debs was an actual socialist.

Nevertheless, Debs didn't get much popular votes and no electoral votes. Roosevelt and Taft split the Republican votes and electoral votes. Wilson was able to get away with a win in the crowded election and ended up as the 28th President of the United States.

If Roosevelt hadn't ran as a 3rd Party candidate, Wilson would've gotten more votes, sure, but Taft might've won the election. Might've.

If Donald Trump wants to try to do this in 2016, that's his choice. However, he will probably not win the election and the Republican candidate probably won't.

In the case of a third party Trump presidential campaign, Trump will essentially hand the election over to the Democrats without a fight.

UPDATE: Donald Trump has declared he will support the eventual Republican nominee and not run for a third party bid or as an Independent.

Why Isn't Durbin the Democrat Senate Leader?

Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), the Minority Leader of the Senate and leader of the Senate Democrats, announced earlier this year he wasn't going to seek re-election in the 2016 elections.

This would mean that on January 3, 2017 the Democrats would have to find, and elect, a new leader.

If things were taken from a hierarchical point of view, Sen. Richard Joseph Durbin (D-IL), would've been the next Senate Democrat Leader as the Minority Whip of the Senate. He is, in fact, the 2nd ranked Democrat of the Senate after Reid himself.

However, things don't always follow that point of view. If so, Richard Cheney (George W. Bush's Vice President) would've ran for President in 2008 and Joe Biden. would've automatically jumped into the election this year.

No, instead, the favorite for the position is Sen. Charles Ellis Schumer (D-NY) who is essentially the 3rd ranked Democrat in the Senate after Durbin and Reid.

Experience doesn't always matter for positions of leadership. If it did, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) would've been the Senate Democrat Leader as he has served over 40 years (the most in the entire Senate). However, even if it did, Durbin would beat out Schumer as Durbin has served as Senator since 1997 and Schumer has been serving as Senator since 1999.

Fine, so you are not including their hierarchical rank or their experience. The only major criteria left is party loyalty, right?

Senator Schumer was one of the first Democrats to announce his opposition to the Iran Nuclear Deal, which was negotiated by Secretary of State John Kerry, who was a Senator (D-MA) and the Democrat presidential candidate for the 2004 elections. This deal was also made under the leadership of President Barack Obama (D-IL).

Meanwhile, as of the time I'm writing this, Senator Durbin has emerged as the top Senate Democrat to support this deal with Harry Reid remaining undecided.

So with party loyalty, hierarchical rank, and experience not mattering - what really matters for this choice to be the next Senate Democrat Leader? I don't know, but what I do know is that January 3, 2017 coming it is almost certain Sen. Schumer will be the leader of the Democrat Senate with Durbin and Reid already endorsing him. Schumer will go from 3rd ranked to top ranked Senate Democrat, while Durbin will sit on as the 2nd ranked Senate Democrat - the whip of the party - the way he has been since January 3, 2005.

#FeelTheBern - Behind the Sanders and Trump Revolutions

This summer has been the summer of long shot candidates. On the Democrat side, there is Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and on the Republican (and possibly Independent, but we'll get back to that later) side, there is real estate mogul Donald Trump.

Senator Bernard Sanders, who is in fact an Independent Senator (not a Democrat Senator) and is a self-proclaimed socialist, started his presidential campaign with very little name recognition. Many thought he was just in the race to be a possible running mate option to Hillary Clinton. However, he has been gaining record crowds across the US and despite not having a Super PAC and instead having contributions from supporters, he is now the sole major contender to Hillary Clinton (unless Vice President Joe Biden jumps in). In fact, in the latest poll in New Hampshire (which neighbors his home state of Vermont and holds the first primary in the nation), he leads Hillary 44%-37%.

On the other side, almost his complete opposite, there is billionaire Donald Trump. Known for making outlandish and insulting statements, he seems to be gaining a cult-like following of people who are frustrated with the government. Tapping into this anger seems to be the main reason he is leading the crowded GOP pack. In the latest poll, he is way ahead with 23% of the support in a crowded Republican field with 17 candidates. Despite having no political experience, or maybe because of that, he is becoming a favorite among the Republicans. He, like Sanders, doesn't have a PAC and instead is financing his own campaign.

Both of these candidates are challenging the norm of their parties and started their campaigns as long shots, but are slowly becoming major contenders. The expected Bush-Clinton election may now be overhauled and turned into a Trump-Sanders election!

Why Joe Biden Should Run

Lately, reports have been gathering that Vice President Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. (D-DE) is actively considering a bid for the 2016 election.

If he does enter, he would be a long shot candidate, ahead of the likes of Martin O'Malley, Jim Webb, and Lincoln Chafee, but definitely behind Sen. Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton.

Clinton, the expected winner of the race and frontrunner, has lost some of her lead to Sanders in the race as he has unexpectedly wound up being the major contender to Clinton's campaign. In fact, in New Hampshire (where the 1st primary is held), Sanders leads Clinton 44%-37% in the latest poll.

A possible Joe Biden campaign would mean he would start at 3rd place in the polls. So, why should he run for President if he would start behind?

Hillary is not having as easy of a time as most people would've expected. Sanders has challenged her to move to the left on many issues. A Joe Biden candidacy would mean a further challenge and make her take a stand on some unanswered issues like the Keystone XL Pipeline.

Plus, in the case in which he won the nomination (which might not be so unlikely considering his support in early voting states like South Carolina and Nevada), he probably would stay for only one term due to his age and wish to be with family.

He has plenty of experience also that would normally constitute a presidential favorite. He was one of the youngest elected Senators elected (elected at age 29 and sworn in at age 30) and served as Senator for 36 years. Then, he was Vice President for 2 terms. Now, he has a chance to be our President.

Even if he won't win the nomination, Joe will definitely alter the views of the Democrat nominee and that may be the biggest reason of all why he should run.