Would I Pardon?

...no, not at all. I think that if someone is in jail, they should stay in jail. It doesn't matter what kind of crime they committed, they're in jail for a reason, and they should be punished for their crime. If I, as president, were to pardon someone, I would put the legal system to shame by saying "well, even though you convicted him, I think he should not be in jail...so I'm going to utilize my seniority over everyone." The president is a person just like everyone else, and I don't think that one person should have authority over any other person.

The "Pardoning" predicament also gives friends and family of The President an easy way out. Granted, I doubt that anyone closely related to The President will do anything illegal, but there is one black sheep in every family right (...George Bush)? If you had the power to pardon someone in your family, wouldn't you feel obligated to? Not only does it give the people closely related to the president an extra incentive to do something wrong, but it also puts The President in an awkward position in that if he does pardon that close person, it will be all over the news because he only pardoned that person, and if he does not, it will be all over the news that he wouldn't even pardon his family member, which I don't think is fair.

Equal Oppotunity to Govern

After reading about the "equal opportunity to govern" predicament, I have to say that I lean towards the "no" category. Call me old fashioned, but I don't want someone who was born out of this country to represent our country. Someone from Nigeria would not represent Italy, and someone from Italy would not represent Nigeria. To me, it is unethical, and people might look at America differently because of it. If a native of China were to become president, then China might try to gain some influence because there is now common ground between countries.

Also, I don't think that this is as big of an issue as people make it out to be as of now. In the future, it might be different, but as of now, I don't see what the big issue is. Sometime down the road, if the amendment needs to be changed, then let it be changed. But as of now, I'm pretty sure that everyone has been (mostly) happy with past presidents (excluding Nixon and Carter, of course...), so why change something that has worked?

Obama's go to guy

Once Obama is inaugurated, there is no doubt in my mind that he will be turning to many sources of information (people) to help him run the country the way he sees fit. However, the question becomes: which person will he turn to first? which person can he trust to give him his or her valid opinion? After pondering this thought, I came to the conclusion that it will most likely be the speaker of The House. Of course Obama will have other sources that he will turn to, such as the vice president, who will give him valid information. However, if Obama and Biden both die in some freak accident, the speaker of The House will be the one to run the country. I think that if Obama is smart, he will try to have as much influence as he can to sway voters into getting who he wants to be the speaker of The House (keep in mind this must be the fair choice, not just a democrat because he is a democrat, or a republican just because he is a republican). That way, he knows that if he is in a freak accident with Biden, the country will be in good hands.

Keep in mind that the speaker of The House must be knowledgeable in both sides of the conflict, and will not just agree with Obama because he is The President.

Thoughts on the outcome of the election

My thoughts about the outcome of the election are depicted in the picture perfectly. It is a terrible time to be a Republican, and I think that last night's election carried this thought out completely. Not only has Obama won the President, but the Democrats have taken the majority of The House and The Senate. I think that this drastic change of parties in the offices has shown how fed up people are with the government. People are dissatisfied with how the government has been running things, all Obama had to do was say he wanted to do the exact opposite of what Bush did in The White House, and he did it successfully. Because Obama said he wanted to reform everything, this caused an increase in voter registrants, which helped the outcome of the election. Voters, who are voting for Obama, are naturally going to vote Democrat for the Senate and House.

I figured that this would be the outcome of the election, merely because people are fed up with the Republican Party. I did expect that John McCain would at least win Virginia, considering that it has voted for the Republican Party since 1964. But, once McCain lost Virginia, I knew that Obama was going to be the president. At that point, that was the only battleground state left, and McCain had not won any at that point.

I am excited (should I be worried?) to see what the Democrats are going to do in Office, and want to see if Obama is going to give the people what he promised.

Palin Rally

After seeing the Palin rally, it really made me realize how much rallies are irrelevant to the voting process. All rallies are are a frat party for candidates, and the people going there are going to vote for that particular party anyway. I think that the debates rely more on how people vote, because each candidate can accurately explain what they want to do with the country (...hopefully).
I also think that political rallies deal mostly with party bashing. For example, Sarah Palin might say "John McCain wants to lower taxes, unlike Barack Obama." This does not accomplish much, because there is no background info involved, but is effective because the people at the rallies, who are already voting republican, have another reason to vote for John McCain.

Don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed the experience of being at the rally. I really liked the fact that I got to see a potential vice president speak in my home town; I think it was a great opportunity to potentially witness history.

Should the voting age be lowered?

...no. In my opinion, the legal age is eighteen...why should you able to vote when you are not even legal? Besides, most kids don't even finish their government classes until they are 17 or 18, and by that time they should be educated enough to vote at the age of 18. If you have kids who are not educated in politics, and voting just because they can or because they like how one candidate dresses does not help the country decide a president what so ever. Even if sixteen year old's have a sense of their political ideas, these ideas can change dramatically in two years...I know mine did.

Honestly, I really don't have an issue with not voting until I am eighteen years old. Voting is not really discussed until it is time to elect a president, and that is when minors want to go out and vote. I don't think that minors are really complaining about the fact that they can't vote besides election year.

Should the electoral college be reformed?

No. My initial thought was that America needs some kind of structure to voting, and the electoral college brings that.

2nd answer: Yes. Yeah Yeah Yeah, Al Gore won popular vote but lost. The thing about that, is that he won the larger states, who actually have fewer electoral votes. Whereas Bush won smaller states, who have more electoral votes, thus causing him to win the presidency. I don't think that the smaller states should get more say in who gets to be president. All states are are just imaginary lines that separate a few buildings, anyway.

3rd answer: Yes. By this point, I think that the president should be chosen by the people, or that the president should be chosen by selected electors. None of this in between Charlie Brown Wishy Washy garbage. Either put your trust into the people, or don't. Basically, it's leading to the president being chosen by electors. If popular vote really mattered, Al Gore would have (would be) been president.

4th answer: Yes. Small States...huh. Never really thought that through. Small states need love, too, but in the case of this election, I think America will vote primarily for one candidate, and it won't be so split. However, if you vote for a president, and lose, get over it. You lost. No recounts.

5th answer: Yes. I think that the electoral college does do some good and some bad, and that the process can be tweaked a little bit. Unfortunately, to change the Electoral College will be near impossible, so I don't really know that it can be reformed. So, Americans may be stuck with voting and praying that the electors vote their way.