Super PACs and their Use

For the past few decades PACs and Super PACs have been a part of every election since the creation of them. Their main focus is to persuade people who are the fence and to push them to the side they want them to be on. They put out attacking adds against the opposing candidate. They do not usually put out adds that support there own candidate but there are some out there. PACs are known for putting out the controversial adds to target the enemy. Also PACs and super PACs can raise a very large to an infinite amount of money for the campaign. The government shouldn't start to regulate these PACs because one, they haven't before so why start now: two, if people want to donate then why stop them: three, and if they are not doing anything illegal don't bother them. So in my personal opinion, before the PACs were not as big so the government did pay to much attention to them and let them be. But now the PACs are so influential and powerful the government thinks they should slow them down, but why? Everything grows to be huge in America and PACs are one of those things and yes I am positive they will get even bigger. Because the population will continue to grow so the PACs will have to get bigger to reach as much people as possible. So just because they are getting bigger does not mean they need to have more rules. Also because PACs can raise such large amount money the government has strict rules about how much money they can receive, but why? the government should not tell how much money a person can donate, because money is a form of speech, and in America I believe we have free speech. So if the person is willing to donate 25 million then let them! So the government should not interfere with the donations that people wan to make because that can violate our 1st amendment right. And lastly, the PACs are not doing anything illegal for the most part, some bend the rules a bit but nothing really violates the law. Yeah there adds are mean and somewhat offensive but they are very legal. But there are some cases where the PACs violate some of the rules with donations and being affiliated with a candidate but that shouldn't mean the government should get heavily involved. So in the end the Government should not interfere with PACs because they have not interfered before, they need to let the PACs raise their own money, and they are not breaking any laws.

Media: Newstainment

I  believe that Newstainment can be a positive trend for both sides of the political spectrum because it provides information from a bias point of view, it is very funny, and the info is mainly fact based. First off, just because a show is funny does not mean you can not learn anything from it, in fact you can learn a lot from these shows. But there is a catch, the information you get from these shows is mainly from a bias that is loyal to either the right or the left side of the political spectrum. So if you are a part of the republican party you can watch the O'Reilly Factor or the Colbert Report and if your a democrat you can watch the Daily Show or the Rachel Maddow Show. But two shows are particular funny and there's one for each side, the Colbert Report and the Daily Show are both very very funny, they base there jokes off of current political news so you still can learn and laugh at the same time. So a lot of teenagers watch these two shows mainly because there funny but this can be there first main exposure to politics. And lastly the information is mainly true on all shows it just depends on how the show portrays, whether its good or bad. Because good news for the democrats and possibly mean bad news for the republicans and the opposite. So all in all I believe Newstainment is good because they provide info, they are funny, and they are mainly factual.

Romneys Running Mate

Since Romney has not yet picked a running mate yet, I'll explain who he should pick based off his own traits. The key traits I'll be focusing on is that he is a white male, he is mormon, and he is not really a "game-changing" candidate. First off, America has had plenty of white male presidents in the past, actually all but one! So what I think is an important thing for Romney to do is pick a mate that is some sort of a minority whether a woman or another race. Because by doing so that can gain votes from that selected group or even more. Also, what makes Romney somewhat of a game changer is that he is a Mormon and it would be the first time if he was elected there would be a Mormon president. So what he should do to counteract this so he does not lose the republican catholic or Lutheran vote he should have either a catholic or Lutheran running mate. And lastly Romney is a very typical candidate who just looks like a president and the public wants to see more than that. So what Romney needs to do for that is to find someone who really sticks out, because the public likes people who stand out. And so far most of the potential candidates for vice president are what the press calls game changers. So with those three things in mind, my personal favorite is Marco Rubio. He fits all the traits I think that Romney needs he is of Hispanic race, he is a catholic, and he is somewhat of a game changer because people say he does not have much experience but he is a senator of Florida which is an important swing state that is a key battleground for the presidency. So if Romney could gain a major Hispanic vote along with the Florida vote, it would be very key for him. So I believe that Mitt Romney should pick Marco Rubio as a running mate for the 2012 presidential election.

http://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/ (Marco Rubio's) website

Electoral College Solutions

Personally I believe our electoral college system works pretty well but, there is one thing I would like to change about it. I agree with the fact that based on population you get your electoral delegates but I disagree with the fact that every state gets an automatic two delegates because they represent the senators of each state. Because I believe fully on population vote, its not fair for Wyoming to get an automatic two when they should only have one, this makes there vote "worth" than a person's vote in lets say California. By doing this it should eliminate that small chance that the president would win the electoral college yet not the popular vote. Because with the smaller states they get those automatic two votes if the state was won so it seems unfair for that to happen. So by doing what I propose, the nominee should always win both the electoral vote and the popular vote. That would eliminate all of those crabby annoying people who would complain about how unfair the system is. And lastly another good thing about taking the automatic two votes is that since there will be 100 electoral votes taken away from the college they can re-calculate on how many states should get electoral votes so for example if before it was one vote for every 100,000 people now it could be 1 vote for every 80,000 people (just an example not accurate). So that is the last positive thing to my proposed solution to fixing the electoral college.