No Joke: Colbert's Campaign May Run Afoul of Law

Nice article detailing the swamp that Colbert is wading into.

Follow up with "Clean Election"

My last post was rather jaded toward campaign finance reform. But as many students have expressed in blogs, money has a lot to do with parties, candidates, and the party system... which may make things less democratic.

I criticized this issue due to lack of a concrete way for money in politics to get in control. I followed up with what campaign finance people on campus to see what they thought about my concerns. I found out they are doing some interesting things with petitioning for local legislation, make college government "clean" (meaning many different things and will have to be well defined) as well as gaining support from candidates who are willing to run a "clean election." What I was surprised to find out was that they have had some success in a few states/elections (2 to be exact). Here's some evidence of the success of this reform effort from Democracy Matters:
"Maine:• In 2006, 78% of the Maine legislature had run as "clean candidates," owing their allegiance to no one but their constituents.• The number of competitive races doubled between 1998 and 2004, and the number of incumbents re-elected declined.• In 2004, 8 of 11 third party candidates (Green Party) qualified for the same level of public financing as other candidates."

Like we talked about in class today (10-18-07), money affects access, which affects how the entire party system looks and works. There are obviously other structural and psychological factors that may.

Maybe Wisconsin could be the next or maybe it will have to start with UWM's Student government. It seems that if enough people care about money in campaigns (like expressed in 421 blogs) there could be an increase in "clean elections."

The Difference Between a Party and a Faction

In today's New York Times, James Dobson nicely sums up the difference between partisans and issue activists:

The other approach [to voting], which I find problematic, is to choose a candidate according to the likelihood of electoral success or failure. Polls don’t measure right and wrong; voting according to the possibility of winning or losing can lead directly to the compromise of one’s principles. In the present political climate, it could result in the abandonment of cherished beliefs that conservative Christians have promoted and defended for decades. Winning the presidential election is vitally important, but not at the expense of what we hold most dear.

The text of the op-ed reads like a not-to-subtle threat to the GOP presidential candidates.

Does Democracy Matter?

From reading many of your posts last week, I mulled over previous notions about campaign finance reform, clean elections, and other notions that seemingly advocate for a political system with less focus on money and more focus on the masses.

Reform is a political beast. Honestly, reform of financing in our system seems so overwhelming in terms of what can actually change. The McCain-Feingold reform was a rollercoaster with lots of hype, but in the end it was just a bunch of loopholes. This is frustrating to those who value the ideals of democracy.

There are advocacy groups, one here on campus in fact, that work toward cleaner elections. Group's website. Their ideas are working toward a more ideal democracy; potentially a more democratic democracy, but how do I know it will matter? Activity toward reform still seems so overbearing it's hard to latch onto on more than a conceptual basis.

Reform is a political beast, but just not a sexy beast.

A Guide to the Political Herds (nytimes.com)

The link to the New York Times piece on political herds as mentioned in class on Monday. It's a fancy flashy web interactive experience.

Do Primary Polls Matter?

Every presidential election there is always a buzz surrounding the first primaries. Iowa and New Hampshire, South Carolina, and now Florida, get attention in a diversity of ways. These states get more visits, more rallies, more pictures are taken, and more babies kissed. Another election essential that shows up is polling. The national and statewide polls are adding up already, but some question the early bird validity.

In an article from Pollster.com, primary polls that are taken several months in advance are given a skeptical eye. Do people know already who they want to vote for? At one point, I thought I knew, but now I'm not so sure. The poll in this article reports around 85% of voters being fairly certain of who they are voting for between Iowa, NH, and SC.

The media and the polls have a great deal of influence over the primary scene and polling data at this point. They call it a "horse race" for a reason. The front runner gets all the attention while those not in first are pinned as losers and tend to receive more negative attention. Is that the case in this election? It seems Clinton has been getting more attention, some positive and some negative, but more than the runner's up. The same could be said for Giuliani. Are folks like Kucinich and Brownback sitting on their couches? Why aren't they in the news? Or maybe these candidates are doing a better job of getting positive media attention, like with Clinton's Health Care sweep this weekend. The Times speaks Clinton's weekend.

If you have made up your mind this early in the race or not, I believe it is hard to deny the constant polls telling you who is the likely winner. Even President Bush couldn't bite his tounge when it came to talking about the '08 prospects. Article. It's real nice to root for the underdog, but who doesn't like a winner?

41

We received URLs from 41 students in the class. You've probably noticed the links to their blogs now appear in the sidebar. Please start using them.

If you don't see your name on that list, we think you don't want a very good grade in the class. Of course, you may have slipped through cracks, but please take this time to convince us that your love for Party Politics in America is strong by (re-)emailing us with your name and URL.

UPDATE: If you can't see the links in the sidebar, please try reloading the page.

Blogger in the News!

For those of you who are new to blogging, welcome. Personally, I cannot say I have gone out of my way to compose a blog outside political science classes, but many do use blogging on a very serious level. I came upon an article that may or may not legitimize blogging and its content, but certainly the potential to say make some debatable formidable statements. Here is a man, a political blogger more precisely, who went out of his way to construct some extremely juicy content for blogging... and was rewarded with publicity (an article in the NY Times at least). Granted, "Low Blow Joe," is not new the the political arena, and received more attention from his blog than a Political Parties student might. But who knows, successful blogging could lead to more than a good grade in this class, it may just lead to juicy enough content (with evidence of course) to have some influence over an election.

Do you think a blog has that potential? How much of a factor will this technology be in the time leading up to the primaries?

Welcome to POL SCI 421

On the course page you can find the syllabus and links to some of the readings:

Party Politics in America

Get Ready for Fall 2007

Lectures MW 12:30-1:45pm.