On December 19, electors gathered in state capitals to formally elect Donald J. Trump to be the next President of the United States. An event that typically garners little attention every four years had its time in the national spotlight this year as many called for electors to turn against the will of the voters and prevent a Trump presidency. While the effort to use the Electoral College to block Trump never panned out, there were more of the so-called faithless electors in 2016 than in any election in many years.

But before we can dig into the recent controversy surrounding the Electoral College, it is important to understand the system itself. Specifically, what exactly is the Electoral College, what is its purpose, and why is it the final arbiter in the election, not the popular vote? Read on to find out the answers to these questions and more.

History of the Electoral College

The history of the Electoral College goes back to the Constitutional Convention of 1787. It was during that seminal moment in American history when the idea of the Electoral College was determined to be the best way to elect the President of the United States. The number of electors in each state is determined by combining the number of senators and representatives in that state. Today, there are 538 electors in total (one for each of the 435 representatives, 100 senators, and the three given to Washington, D.C. by the 23rd Amendment), ranging from three in some states to 55 in California. The number of electors in each state can change with every census, depending on population changes, but no state can have fewer than three electoral votes.

While the number of electors each state has is equal to the combined number of representatives and senators, those representatives or anyone “holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States” is not allowed to serve as an elector. If one candidate does not receive a majority, 270 votes, then the House of Representatives decides the election. Parties in each state select the electors for their presidential candidate. In most states, this is done either through state party conventions or central committees. In a few states, a mix of other methods are also employed.

Election Day–which is held every four years on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November–is actually an intermediate step in the presidential election process. While voters cast their votes for a presidential ticket, they are actually choosing a slate of electors who, in the following month, will participate in the final election. The slate for the candidate who wins the most popular votes is elected; this is known as the winner-take-all, or general ticket, system. However, two states, Nebraska and Maine, do not follow the winner-takes-all rule. In those states, electoral votes can be split among multiple candidates through the state’s system of proportional allocation. Regardless of the methodology, once all the votes have been cast and tallied, Congress certifies the results on January 6 of the following year–2017 for the most recent election.

The video below gives an overview of the system and its history:

Changes in the Electoral College over time

The Electoral College system has changed little since its initial unveiling, aside from an adjustment due to the passage of the 12th Amendment in 1804. Before the 12th Amendment, electors in each state voted for two people (at least one of whom had to be from a different state than the elector) and the person with a majority of votes became the president while the runner-up became the vice president.

In the 1796 election, that system produced a president, John Adams, from the Federalist party and a Vice President, Thomas Jefferson, from the Democratic-Republican Party because Federalist Party electors split their votes between multiple vice presidential picks. Then in 1800, the electors voted along party lines for both a president and a vice president, but due to the two-vote system, there was a tie and the House was forced to determine the president. After the complexity of those two elections, lawmakers got together to devise the 12th Amendment, which changed the Electoral College so that electors vote for president and vice president with one vote. That, in general, is the system used in the United States today.

The process of choosing the electors has also changed slightly from the initial procedure in many places. Originally, in several states, the state legislature would determine the electors, meaning that the public had no direct role in the presidential election process. However, that was changed as voting rights spread. In fact, since 1876, every state has used the popular vote to select electors.

Issues with the Electoral College

Naturally, for a system that has been around for 200 years, the Electoral College has dealt with its share of criticism. While electors are expected and have pledged to vote for their state’s popular vote winner, there are a few examples of electors going against the voters. In the last century, at least one example of this practice has occurred in the elections of 1948, 1956, 1960, 1968, 1972, 1976, 1988, 2000, and of course in 2016, which set a modern record. These people are commonly known as “faithless” or “unfaithful” electors. Although it has happened several times in the past, faithless electors have never actually influenced the outcome of the election. Some states have laws on the books to penalize faithless electors, although some argue that if challenged in court, such laws may be deemed unconstitutional.

Beyond faithless electors, the system has had one controversial moment that did end up deciding an election. Namely, in 1824 Andrew Jackson won the most electoral votes; however, he did not win a majority. As a result, the election was thrown back into the House of Representatives and the runner-up in the original election, John Quincy Adams, went on to be elected President of the United States. This was the first and only election where the candidate with the most electoral votes did not win the election. It was also the first time that the candidate with the highest share of the popular vote did not become president. The accompanying video looks at some of the issues with the Electoral College:

Electoral College vs the Popular Vote

A major recurring issue in American presidential elections is that the final outcome is decided by the Electoral College and not the popular vote. Generally, this has not been an issue as the winner of one usually ends up winning the other as well. There are only four instances when the winner of the Electoral College lost the popular vote: 1876, 1888, 2000, and in 2016 (in 1824, no one won a majority in the electoral college and the House chose the president). The margin of President-elect Donald Trump’s loss in the popular vote this election cycle was five times larger than any other election winner in history, with nearly 2.9 million fewer votes. The results of this election, in particular, have led many to criticize the use of the Electoral College, which raises the obvious question: why does the popular vote not determine the winner?

The answer to that question starts with the first Secretary of the Treasury and George Washington’s confidant, Alexander Hamilton. In Federalist 68 he defended the system as a sort of compromise between an aristocracy and a democracy. While Hamilton and many of the other founders wanted a democratic nation, they also wanted an informed and level-headed electorate, something that Hamilton did not view the American people as at that time. Hamilton based this on his knowledge of the downfall of classical democracy, but also an interest in states’ rights.

Namely, Hamilton wanted states that do not necessarily have large populations to be accounted for and have a say in the government. Without the Electoral College one state with a huge population, California now or Virginia in early U.S. history, would be able to significantly influence the final election outcome. This, in turn, would lead candidates to campaign in large states and population centers while ignoring the rest and their associated interests. Moreover, Hamilton wanted the electoral college to ensure that a candidate could appeal to the entire country. However, opponents of the current system argue that modern swing states tilt the campaign in much the same way.

Conclusion

After close elections, particularly those with a split between the popular vote and the Electoral College, many who supported the losing candidate tend to criticize the system. The most recent election featured a split that was very large by historic standards, making that sentiment even stronger. Ultimately, the Electoral College has survived since its inception over 200 years ago and is likely to survive in the future as well. While the system has had several tweaks over the years, the general framework remains intact.

The system is not perfect and simply relying on the popular vote may assuage people’s anger, at least if it benefits their favored candidate. In the meantime, there are other avenues for the disaffected, such as fighting laws that restrict access to voting or even encouraging more people to vote; in 2016 for example, only around 58 percent of eligible voters actually voted.

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Electoral College: What is it and Why Do We Still Have it? appeared first on Law Street.

During a concert Thursday night in San Jose, California, Kanye West stunned fans by announcing he didn’t vote in the presidential election, but if he had, he would have voted for Donald Trump.

“I told you all I didn’t vote right? … But if I were to have voted, I would have voted on Trump,” West said.

“I would’ve voted for Trump” – @kanyewest pic.twitter.com/XtyUteCgUZ

— albertoreyes (@albertoreyes) November 18, 2016

Fans immediately began booing West, and some even began to throw things at him from the crowd.

His announcement came as a huge shock to many, especially since:

1. In 2005, he famously called out then-President George W. Bush after Hurricane Katrina, saying Bush didn’t “care about black people.”
2. His wife, Kim Kardashian West, endorsed Hillary Clinton by posting a selfie with the Democratic hopeful (which included Kanye).
3. As Pitchfork points out, he’s made four contributions to Democratic campaigns since 2012. Not only did he donate to both of Obama’s campaigns, but he also gave $15,000 to the DNC in October 2014 and $2,700 to Hillary for America in July 2015.

However, the two men do have a few things in common. They’re both rich, have huge egos, and are outspoken to a fault.

Here’s an extended clip of his rant.

West defended his viewpoint to the audience, stating:

That don’t mean that I don’t think that Black Lives Matter. That don’t mean that I don’t think that I’m a believer in women’s rights. That don’t mean I don’t believe in gay marriage. That don’t mean that I don’t believe in these things because that was the guy I would’ve voted for.

He also reportedly told the crowd that “neither candidate would fix racism in this country, and that black people need to stop focusing on racism because we live in a racist country.”

People on Twitter immediately began disowning West, frequently mocking him with lyrics modeled after his own song “I Love Kanye.”

I miss the old kanye
The black and bold kanye
The smokin kush kanye
The anti bush kanye
Not donald trump Kanye

— Jon the Don (@big_jon4) November 18, 2016

I miss the old Kanye
The socially woke Kanye
Called Bush a joke Kanye
He used his vote Kanye

— JAY ₆ (@VIEWSFROMJAY) November 18, 2016

Is this a joke kanye
U actin broke kanye
U blowin smoke kanye
I miss the old kanye https://t.co/CKiYttEYBs

— lauren fuentes (@laurenschroed) November 18, 2016

I miss the old Kanye
The black & bold dope Kanye
The anti Bush Woke Kanye
Not Donald Trumps Kanye pic.twitter.com/d8RkGj1oap

— E (@esheikh_) November 18, 2016

“Bush doesn’t care about black people” – Kanye

“There’s racism in the fashion industry” – Kanye

“Stop talking about racism” – Kanye

— Jigga Jeaux (@JoeOnDemand) November 18, 2016

Blu: Daddy, how come people keep saying bad things about Uncle Kanye?
Jay: That’s not your uncle babygirl pic.twitter.com/emCyK4wRF0

— BABY HAIR & AFROS✊ (@NiecysUnknown) November 18, 2016

Kanye West, 2005: president Bush doesn’t care about black people
Kanye to Kanye, 2016: neither do you pic.twitter.com/kBHnZeg7RY

— Jocelyn Aspa (@jocelynaspa) November 18, 2016

It seems pretty crazy that Kanye thinks Donald Trump should be president until you remember that Kanye also thinks Kanye should be president

— . (@browniecdg) November 18, 2016

every single person in the crowd at the kanye concert: please please dont talk ab the election

kanye: i have something to say

crowd: fuck

— Cody Ko (@codyko) November 18, 2016

How I sleep at night knowing I never bought Yeezys pic.twitter.com/s0mKV2MBTH

— PROD. BY @VERYRVRE (@TVSH_P) November 18, 2016

West is no stranger to negative controversies, and likely won’t lose sleep over his comments. Who knows, his Trump outburst may have been a clever publicity stunt given that he plans to “run for president in 2020.” We’ll just have to wait and see.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Kanye West Booed After Saying He Would Have Voted for Trump appeared first on Law Street.

It can be hard to focus on things other than the election results right now, but there are already speculations brewing about who will run for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020.

Senator Cory Booker is a popular choice for many Democrats. The 47-year-old New Jersey lawmaker has become famous for rescuing things–and people. He saved a freezing dog, let people who lost power during Hurricane Sandy hang out at his home, saved a woman from a burning house, and bounced around town shoveling snow from people’s driveways after the Snowpocalypse of 2010. Booker was the mayor of Newark from 2006 to 2013. He is also known for his pretty decent sense of humor:

Sir, it looks like you live in Dublin, Ireland. I’ve got 99 problems & your ditch ain’t one MT @leedalyire Can u sort the pothole outside?

— Cory Booker (@CoryBooker) November 5, 2012

Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts is also a favorite. She’s a strong woman, very anti-Wall Street, and has an impressive resume. She was by Hillary Clinton’s side during the 2016 campaign, standing up to Trump. One potential downside: her age. She would 71 in 2020, and if she won she would be the oldest president ever elected. Trump currently holds that distinction, at 70.

Elizabeth Warren announces her 2020 presidential campaign in 3…2…

— Matt Viser (@mviser) November 9, 2016

Queens-born New York Governor Andrew Cuomo is popular in the city for positioning himself as a progressive Democrat, with some of the same positions as Senator Bernie Sanders, such as pushing for a $15 minimum wage and being strongly pro-gay marriage. His long-time girlfriend happens to be television star, chef, and author Sandra Lee, and she would be a pretty cool First Lady.

Andrew Cuomo should run for President only because Sandra Lee could figure out a way to put vodka in her First Lady cookie recipe

— Erin Gloria Ryan (@morninggloria) August 23, 2016

Hillary’s running mate Senator Tim Kaine, of Virginia, impressed many Hispanic voters when he delivered speeches in Spanish in Phoenix and Miami. He was the first ever candidate on a presidential ticket to do so. In the political world he is relatively young at 58, but has a long political career behind him, having served as mayor of Richmond, chair of the DNC, and U.S. Senator.

Watch @TimKaine make history. He’s the first candidate to deliver a presidential campaign speech entirely in Spanish. pic.twitter.com/WsjfXm5uco

— MoveOn.org (@MoveOn) November 5, 2016

The weirdest celebrity who is being talked about as a future presidential candidate is, of course, Kanye West. Since the rapper, reality star, and Kim Kardashian’s husband mentioned running for president at the MTV Video Music Awards in 2015, his fans have taken him somewhat seriously and urged him on…although it’s unclear if he was actually being serious or not. But earlier this year it seemed as if he actually was, when he told BBC: “I don’t have views on politics, I just have a view on humanity, on people, on the truth. If there is anything that I can do with my time and my day to somehow make a difference while I’m alive, I’m going to try to do it.”

I WOULD HONESTLY BE HAPPIER WITH KANYE WEST #kanye2020

— Sydney Fleischman (@MsSydneyCupcake) November 9, 2016

There’s only one man who can save us now #kanye2020 #ElectionNight pic.twitter.com/C9b4tPJGZF

— Abi Morris (@abicmorris) November 9, 2016

And of course everyone would love to see Michelle Obama in office. But unfortunately for voters, her husband has said that she will absolutely not run for office. “Let me tell you, there are three things that are certain in life: death, taxes and Michelle is not running for president. That, I can tell you,” Obama said in January. But he did confirm that she will stay “really active” after they leave the White House, so hopefully we can get a healthy dose of the Obamas still.

Is it too early to nominate presidential candidates for 2020?

MichelleObama & @BernieSanders

— Shailene. (@ShaileneG) November 10, 2016

And a last thought on the phenomenon of the 2016 election:

My hope for 2020 is that we get away from the 2 party system & nominate candidates we’re excited to vote for. No less of 2 evils approach.

— Bobby Bauer (@Bauer_Bobby) November 9, 2016

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fast Forward: Who Could Run for President in 2020? appeared first on Law Street.

After a compromising audio recording from 2005–in which Donald Trump brags about groping women–was revealed last week, Trump had no other option than to apologize. But it nevertheless made several Republicans withdraw their support for him. After hearing the recording, House Speaker Paul Ryan said that he hopes Trump “works to demonstrate to the country that he has greater respect for women than this clip suggests,” which made John Oliver burst out in a wordy monolog on Sunday, barely stopping to take a breath.

“It is too late in absolutely every way,” John Oliver said of the recent round of un-endorsements. “First, it’s October of an election year, and second, he’s fucking 70.”

He went on to show clips of different Republicans revoking their support of the Republican nominee after hearing the tape. Many did so with words like, “I have five daughters,” or, “I have a wife, I have a daughter, I have a mother, and I have five sisters.”

It should not be necessary to have to go through, as Oliver says, “such an elaborate six-degrees-of-separation exercise to arrive at someone with a Y chromosome that you can feel sorry for,” to think it’s not okay to talk like that about other human beings.

Here’s the full clip:

John McCain wrote in a statement on Saturday that he will not vote for Trump. In an earlier statement, he said: “He alone bears the burden of his conduct and alone should suffer the consequences.” For that, John Oliver called him out. “He alone does not bear the burden of his conduct because he alone did not make himself your party’s nominee,” he said to Republicans who’ve supported Trump up until now. “All of you have consistently supported him through some absolutely heinous shit.”

He added:

In his very first campaign speech, he called Mexicans ‘rapists’–and that was just the beginning. Because since then, he’s proposed a temporary ban on Muslim immigrants; advocated for killing terrorists’ families, which is, by the way, a war crime; argued for waterboarding even if it doesn’t obtain information because, and I quote: ‘they deserve it anyway;’ and just this week he stood by his claims that the Central Park Five were guilty despite the fact that DNA evidence has since exonerated them.

At this point, no one can pretend to be shocked by Donald Trump’s behavior, especially not the people that have stood by him despite wildly offensive comments that have all but become the signature of his campaign.

He ended by saying that this is essentially the logical conclusion of the election cycle:

The first female presidential nominee versus the human embodiment of every backward, condescending, ‘Mad Men’-esque boys’ club attitude that has ever existed, rolled into one giant, salivating, dick size–referencing, pussy-grabbing warthog in a red power tie.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post John Oliver Rips Republicans Who Waited Until Now to Un-Endorse Trump appeared first on Law Street.

As the election season winds down, most of the attention will turn to the remaining debates. These debates have taken on an important role in the presidential selection process, allowing viewers to see candidates pitch their visions for the country side by side. However, debates did not always play such a major role in elections and are actually a relatively new development. They have also not always had the impact they are perceived to have nowadays, something that could become even more exacerbated by the effects of modern technology.

Read on to find out more about the history of presidential debates in the United States, take a closer look at some of the most significant debates, and see how the process has changed over time with the influx of new technologies.

How the Debates Work

Debate rules, like the candidates themselves, change from election to election, and this year they even change from debate to debate. Nevertheless, 2016’s debates will work off the framework established by the 2012 edition and share some commonalities. Each will be 90 minutes long with no breaks. The moderator will be the sole deciding factor in which questions are asked, whether or not to extend segments, and he or she will be in charge of keeping the discussion appropriate. Some of these rules are new and others have been in place for a while, however, they all compare starkly to the first major U.S. debate way back in 1858.

History of Debates

One of the first high-profile debates between politicians occurred back in 1858, but it wasn’t between presidential candidates. The famous Lincoln-Douglas debates shaped the Senate race in Illinois, but they were quite different from the modern style of debates we see today. These debates only came about because Lincoln had been following Douglas on the campaign trail and asking questions at a number of his stops, which eventually led the two to hold a series of formal debates. These debates were quite long and did not even feature moderators. Following that election, there were no high-profile debates for roughly 90 years, as candidates instead preferred to make individual speeches.

The first year that presidential candidates had a public debate was in 1948 in the Republican primary. The first presidential debate between major party nominees was not for another 12 years, in 1960. The 1948 Republican debate was also the first debate broadcast on radio; 40 to 80 million people listened in. The 1960 debates were the first debates to be broadcast on television. For that first televised debate, approximately one in three Americans watched, or 66.4 million people. There was another long gap between debates following that year, as the next round of presidential debates was not held until 1976. However, from that point on, debates have been held in every election cycle. In 1976, there was a vice presidential debate, a practice that has become a tradition ever since the 1984 cycle.

According to the rating service Nielsen, the highest rated Presidential debate ever was in October 2012 between President Barack Obama and Republican Nominee Mitt Romney, which 46.2 million households watched. In terms of individual viewers, the Carter-Reagan debate of 1980 had the most, with 80.6 million. Since 1987, the debates have been under the direction of the Commission on Presidential Debates, a bipartisan organization tasked with setting the format and rules of each debate.

The following video gives a look at the evolution of debates over time:

Major Debates and Their Impact

Regardless of their medium and audience size, debates have now been taking place in U.S. presidential elections for more than 70 years. In that time there have been some memorable moments, both at the presidential and vice presidential levels. Time has a list of its ten most memorable debates, although there have been many. Often these tend to focus on politicians making embarrassing mistakes that doom their campaign, like Rick Perry in 2012, or on one-liners like the infamous one delivered by Ronald Reagan to Walter Mondale in 1984 about their respective ages.

The video below highlights some of the most memorable moments in presidential debates:

One of the most famous debates was the one between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon in the lead up to the 1960 Presidential contest. Coming into the debate, the candidates were locked in a close race, however, physically they were very different as Nixon had been recently hospitalized for an infection. Normally, this would not have played a role, but this was the first televised debate. Thus, for most of the viewers watching on television, the young, healthy looking JFK defeated his opponent, the sickly-looking Richard Nixon. This debate not only signaled the importance of the rise of television–radio listeners generally thought Nixon did better–but it helped usher in the short but iconic Kennedy era. The debate also had an effect on Nixon, who refused to participate in debates the next time he ran for president and again when he ran for reelection.

Do the debates matter?

While there have been memorable debates, some of which we still talk about today, it is fair to ask what impact they actually have on the outcome of elections. Although people involved in politics, such as pundits or political advisors, like to suggest they have a major impact on voters in the same way party conventions can, the numbers do not really bear that out. According to two separate studies done by political scientists–the first by James Stinson and the second by Robert Erikson and Christopher Wlezien–the effects of debates on polls are negligible and often mirror whatever trend was already occurring.

It is not that the debates don’t matter, they just often have a very small effect, if one at all. Even the infamous Kennedy-Nixon debate may have only led to a 3 or 4 point swing, which is within the margin of error in most polls. It is also important to note that these debates do not happen a vacuum, so what might appear as an effect of a debate is often just another symptom of an ongoing issue with a candidate. In addition, the candidates are traditionally similar enough or have prepped long enough so there is no clear winner or the person deemed the winner varied based on the viewer’s political preferences.

What the debates are seemingly most useful for then, is informing voters about a candidate. This is especially true in the first debate when voters may still be learning about the candidates. This is also true for a challenger whom the debates may favor. Indeed, despite the studies mentioned earlier, some groups still contend that debates are very important in deciding the presidency. The Pew Research Center found that in 2008, two-thirds of voters said that the debates would influence their vote.

How the debates have changed

While there are some differing opinions on whether the debates have an impact on voters, one undisputable truth is that technology has influenced the debates. When Douglas and Lincoln had their famous debate they would go from town to town, giving hours-long speeches that would be covered in newspapers. When debates returned in the 20th century, the new medium was radio, which reduced the length and substance of the events. Next was television, which shortened the events even more while adding a visual element.

Unsurprisingly, Presidential debates have continued to change a lot since the first debate aired on television in 1960. The last few election cycles, in particular, have brought about a number of major changes, all involving the use of the internet and social media. In 2008 for example, people were allowed to send in questions through YouTube. In 2012, questions in primary debates started coming via Facebook. This year, the debates will be streamed live on both YouTube and on Twitter, along with the major networks. In addition to watching with social media, users are also able to get real-time feedback on their opinions, both through those sites and on their television screens, which have a line showing who is perceived to be winning the debate as it happens.

The following video looks at the role of technology in today’s debates:

Conclusion

In our current age of instant–and some might say excessive–exposure, debates are the ultimate platform for presidential candidates to prove themselves to the nation or fail in about as public a way as possible. At least that is the perception anyway. However, Presidential debates are relatively young and have changed dramatically throughout the years as technology has evolved. Additionally, their role in determining who inevitably becomes the President may also be overblown. Major studies have shown that debates have little or no impact and serve more to reinforce long-standing beliefs.

But the debates serve as one of the best opportunities for the audience to get to know a candidate before the election and for the candidates to get their message out. Presidential debates have become extremely popular events and intertwine themselves into the pre-election fabric so they are unlikely to go away. Their usefulness, however, is up for, well, debate.

Resources

Commission on Presidential Debates: Debate History

National Parks Service: The Lincoln-Douglas Debates of 1858

Forbes: 13 Quick Facts About The History Of Presidential Debates In America

Time: 10 Memorable Moments in Presidential Debate History

History: The Kennedy-Nixon Debates

Washington Monthly: Do Presidential Debates Actually Matter?

Journalist’s Resource: Presidential Debates and Their Effects: An Updated Research Roundup

Commission on Presidential Debates: Format for 2016 General Election Debates

Tech Crunch: How Technology Destroyed The Once Substantive Presidential Debate

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Do Presidential Debates Really Matter? appeared first on Law Street.

As a journalism student, especially one interested in politics, I am constantly surrounded by election news, so I pride myself on being educated and informed on all of the presidential candidates. So, something that really strikes a chord with me is when people my age (college-aged) tell me that they are going to refrain from voting.

Obviously, my first question is “why?”

I recently saw the post and video below on my Facebook timeline. It got me thinking that I know an awful lot of people who complain about politicians, “the system,” and everything going on in this campaign who have told me that they are simply not going to vote.

It is no surprise that voters ages 18-24 rarely make it out to the polls. According to a Census Bureau Report, in the 2012 presidential election 38 percent of eligible 18-24-year-olds actually voted.  To put that in perspective, approximately 61.8 percent of all eligible Americans voted. Seem low? It is. The least represented group at the polls is 18-24-year-olds.

In the 2012 election, 69.7 percent of eligible voters aged 65 and over voted. Now, I know we all have that aunt or uncle whose views are too radical to even listen to at the dinner table at family gatherings…so why give their voice more validity and weight if you have a chance to be a part of a different opinion?

The difference between the voting rate of young people aged 18-29 and their eligibility rate was -5.8 percent. Voting is a civic duty, and by not voting we are only distancing ourselves from a government that we want because we don’t allow our voices to be heard.

Tomorrow is the Missouri Primary! Polls across the state will be open from 6AM-7PM #Election2016 pic.twitter.com/pOrE39qS5s

— The University News (@TheUNews) March 14, 2016

Here are some of the most common explanations young eligible voters have for not voting:

“I hate all of the candidates.”

I hear this often as a reason not to vote. My response: if you hate all of the candidates so much, do something about it! Don’t just complain on Twitter, go out and vote and make your voice heard. Write-in, vote for third-party candidates, do something! Because at least you can say that you had a part in the process.

don’t sit on here and preach about who you want to become president and who would be best for president if you ain’t get up and vote

— (@OGTatum_) March 16, 2016

I know people who hate the Maryland governor but didn’t feel like voting in the gubernatorial election against him. There’s no use in complaining now if you didn’t even feel like being a part of the process in the first place.

In the 2014 election (midterm), a sad 36 percent of eligible voters actually turned out to vote (which isn’t completely unusual for midterm, but lower than previous years), according to the U.S. Census Bureau cited in The Washington Post. Of the voters who didn’t hit the polls, 28 percent said they were just ‘”too busy.”

“I’m just not that into politics” or “I don’t know much about the candidates.”

This is another popular reason I hear. But you can be “not into politics,” while still keeping yourself informed. I know plenty of students who despise politics, yet keep up on the race because they know it is important to know what is going on. You don’t have to read every single article about the candidates or even keep up on the immediate news to check up every once in a while to see where the candidates stand and what they have been saying. Simple Google searches will take you to the stances of every candidate.

Obviously, not all political quizzes were made equal, but ISideWith isn’t too bad if you want to get a feel for who you may share views with.

“My vote doesn’t even count for much, who cares?”

This is probably my least favorite excuse not to vote. Most frustrating is that there are a lot of people who truly don’t believe their vote counts. Whether that be because of the way our system is set up, or just a misconception about how powerful a vote is, it isn’t a good way to think about voting. A lot of people feel this way, which means a lot of people will not vote purely because they think they don’t have any stake in who becomes president. While the impact of a single vote may not seem like much, the impact of many single votes not being casted adds up. A silent majority is still a majority, just not one whose opinion counts when it matters most.

“I’m voting for Donald Trump.”

Oh, okay, yeah, don’t worry about even heading out to the polls then.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why Millennials Need to Vote in the Presidential Election appeared first on Law Street.

Last night’s MTV Video Music Awards went much like you’d expect. Miley attempted to shock viewers with nipple skimming outfits and weed references, none of the jokes were funny, Taylor Swift won most of the awards, and Kanye managed to steal the show–but this time without stealing a mic from Swift.

During a bizarre 11-minute-long acceptance speech for the Michael Jackson Video Vanguard Award, Yeezy talked about everything from how fatherhood changed him to fighting for artists…and a possible presidential run in 2020?

After rambling about “dying for the art” and “millennials’ new mentality” West said,

I don’t know what I finna lose after this. It don’t matter, though; It’s not about me. It’s about ideas. New ideas. People with ideas. People who believe in truth.

And yes, as you probably could’ve guessed by this moment, I have decided in 2020 to run for president.

**[Literally Drops Mic]**

Kanye hasn’t made it clear whether or not he was joking about the potential run, but he did make the announcement after admitting he “rolled up a little something” to knock the edge off before the show.

Watch Kanye’s full speech below:

Regardless of how serious he was, the Kardashian sisters were quick to jump on the “Kanye for President” bandwagon, posting their support on social media.

A photo posted by King Kylie (@kyliejenner) on Aug 30, 2015 at 8:00pm PDT

Mr West!!! pic.twitter.com/NuLlx9MnYT — Khloé (@khloekardashian) August 31, 2015

But Kourtney’s tweet was hands down the best.

pic.twitter.com/OdPQ9JlfYD — Kourtney Kardashian (@kourtneykardash) August 31, 2015

For those of you wondering why 2020, it may be because he and his wife have already endorsed their candidate for 2016.

I got my selfie!!! I really loved hearing her speak & hearing her goals for our country! #HillaryForPresident pic.twitter.com/zGpdcGSZBD — Kim Kardashian West (@KimKardashian) August 7, 2015

But if for some reason he did choose to run this year, I bet Deez Nuts would happily sign on to be his running mate!

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is Kanye West Really Running For President? appeared first on Law Street.

The “Selfie Campaign.” Kind of has a nice ring to it, doesn’t it? Well that’s the best way to describe what two sisters from New Hampshire are attempting, after vowing to take a selfie with every 2016 presidential candidate.

Presidential candidates are lining up to take a selfie with these teenage sisters http://t.co/aoux92E1ZL (via Twi… pic.twitter.com/pv3cHIAC0Z

— Joseph Abraham (@kjosephabraham) August 1, 2015

Sisters Addy Nozell, 17, and Emma Nozell, 15, are no strangers to politics and presidential campaigns. In fact, the girls have been taking selfies with politicians before “selfies” were even part of popular culture. Emma recalls being exposed to politics at a young age by their parents saying,

We were always in the parades. We were always making signs. We were always helping them [the candidates] with whatever was needed.

While neither of these girls is old enough to vote in the primaries, they are already making a name for themselves with the candidates. In fact, Donald Trump, the current leader of the Republican polls, was seemingly expecting the girls to approach him at a rally at the Weirs Beach Community Center, telling the girls, “oh, alright let’s get the selfie.”

The “selfie sisters” of New Hampshire can scratch Donald #Trump off the to-do list. #WBZ @PaulaEbbenWBZ @mytv38 pic.twitter.com/HmndYrIkdr

— Liam Martin (@LiamWBZ) July 17, 2015

With a crowded field of 20 plus candidates, the girls’ campaign sounds almost impossible. However, they’ve already managed to snap pics with 17 of the candidates in less than a month since they started their quest on July 2 with New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. The only hopefuls that have yet to “say cheese” with the girls are former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee (R), former U.S. Senator Jim Webb (D-Virginia), and currents Senators Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Marco Rubio (R- Florida), and Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont).

Meet Addy and Emma — the “presidential selfie girls” @PrezSelfieGirls http://t.co/ZetxWY3jgW pic.twitter.com/QvVHRdR8MV

— Deena Zeina Zaru (@DeenaZaruCNN) July 13, 2015

More often than not, selfies from teenage girls are duck-faced and distorted, which has led critics of the trend to call the practice superficial and narcissistic. And while for some that may be the case, the Nozell sisters have a different strategy for their “prez pics” at least in part thanks to their mother, Wendy Thomas. The girls practice “selfie etiquette.”  “You can’t stick your tongue out, you have to be respectful,” says Thomas. More importantly, the girls’ mother made it a point that selfie sticks are not permitted. “You gotta go with the old-school selfie and use the arm,” shared Emma.

Addy and Emma’s approach to the “selfie” can be used as a tool for keeping millennials engaged in the presidential race rather than solely for self-promotion. The Nozell sisters are conveying the notion that presidential candidates are generally approachable human beings who can relate to young people, at least when it comes to the preferred method of photo-taking. These girls are becoming increasingly popular and it will be interesting to see if candidates view taking selfies with the girls as a tactful method of gaining publicity among young people.

According to the girls, they have yet to settle on a favorite candidate, but are looking forward to hearing from all of the presidential hopefuls. It’s great to see what started as a fun opportunity morph into an example of youth engagement and educational opportunity–and the sisters show no sign of stopping until they’ve reached their goal.

Symon Rowlands

Symon Rowlands is a member of the University of Miami Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Symon now blogs for Law Street, focusing mostly on politics. Contact Symon at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post I Wanna Vote For You, But First Let Me Take A “Selfie” appeared first on Law Street.

Recently re-elected FIFA president Joseph S. Blatter, known to the world as Swiss Sepp Blatter, announced Tuesday he will step down from his post as president of the international football association’s governing body, following criticism over a corruption scandal.

While 14 of his colleagues were recently indicted on charges of bribery, money laundering, and racketeering, Blatter was left unscathed and re-elected for his fifth consecutive term as FIFA president on Friday, May 29^th. During his reelection speech, Blatter rejoiced in his continued reign with the words,

I thank you, you have accepted me for the next four years. I will be in command of this boat called FIFA.

 

However, Blatter has not escaped blame from the global public over the years, having been labeled a dictator, among other names, and accused of sexism and racism reaching far beyond claims of corrupt laundering practices. According to BBC News, the global citizens’ movement Avaaz was responsible for starting the #BlatterOut campaign, which began trending on Twitter just days before the election. Gary Linekar, the former English footballer and current sports broadcaster, is one of the many to join the campaign against Blatter, who seems to have been at the head of FIFA corruption since 1991.

FIFA members should vote for the good of football, and get rid of a man who’s reigned over a corrupt organisation for too long. #BlatterOut

— Gary Lineker (@GaryLineker) May 28, 2015

So what on earth was keeping Blatter in power if so much of the world wanted #BlatterOut? The answer, unlike what most commonly believe, is not so much about the power of the dollar—or the supposed tens of millions of dollars involved in the corruption since 1991—as it is the power of a single vote in any given FIFA presidential election. Each of the 209 national member associations that make up FIFA’s Congress receives exactly one equal vote no matter how much land area the nation possesses or how much of the world’s population lives in each nation. According to the Washington Post, this means the tiny Caribbean island of Montserrat has as much a say as World Cup powerhouses Brazil or Germany in the election. After totaling the member nations counted in the presidential election, here is the breakdown by regional confederation:

So, what Blatter needed to do to get reelected was not to convince the world that he is not as corrupt as his colleagues, but to cater to the areas of the world that would ensure his victory, and he did. Blatter has made what was once a largely European organization a globalized organization, by bringing what he calls “developmental programs” to underprivileged parts of Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Despite where the money came from to start these programs, in doing so, Blatter spoke for most of the 54 votes of the Confederation of African Football (CAF)—the largest number of votes held by any of the six continental confederations above. Amaju Pinnick, the current president of the Nigerian Football Federation, has expressed that,

Without Blatter we wouldn’t enjoy all the benefits we enjoy today from FIFA. What Blatter pushes is equity, fairness and equality among the nations. We don’t want to experiment.

It was not Blatter’s years of experience or money that got him reelected; it was his ability to systematically accommodate the parts of the world that hold the most votes.

The sole person who opposed Blatter in the election for president was Qatari Mohammed bin Hammam, but he withdrew from the race after suspension by FIFA’s ethics committee due to allegations that he offered financial incentives to Caribbean Football Union members. The response to corruption by England’s Football Association and its chairman David Bernstein was to postpone the election, to instill credibility back into the process, and to appoint an independent external committee to make recommendations about future election processes. Yet, the FA’s proposal was again put up to the votes of 206 member nations equally and the election moved forward without delay.

Are Blatter’s or any other FIFA administrator’s corrupt practices inevitable in this day and age of soccer as yet another means of politics? Or is Blatter’s attempt to globalize the world by bringing soccer and developmental programs to countries outside of Europe a kind of affirmative action policy that permits or even necessitates some corruption behind the scenes? Whether you answer yes or no to these questions, FIFA’s Executive Committee might consider an election reform of proportional representation by member nations in order to assure that the next FIFA president elected is preferred in power by all parts of the world instead of only by the continent with the most votes.

Jenifer Carter

Jenifer Carter is a member of the University of Virginia Class of 2016. Contact Jenifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Controversial Re-election Forces FIFA President to Resign appeared first on Law Street.