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.

Should the government regulate interest groups?

In short, no. I don't believe that the government should have the role of saying which interest groups are legitimate, and which ones are not. I think that every group should have a say in what they want, rather than to have some of the smaller groups kicked to the side because they are not deemed important. Some of the smaller groups might be more efficient in their ideas than the bigger groups, so it isn't necessarily fair game if only the big dogs have say in what they want.

I disagree with the fact that it is the government's job to say that there is corruption and/or misinformation here or there. I think that should be left to the newspapers. Somehow or another, word will get out, and people will know about corruption without the government's help, so why should they get involved if they don't have to?

Overall, I think that if the government regulates interest groups, they are essentially taking away the right to freedom of speech, which violates the Constitution. I think the Constitution should be upheld in this case.

Does the United States spend too much money on defense?

1st answer: "yes." The way I see it, the U.S. spends approximately $600 billion a year on making sure our country is safe. Please don't get me wrong, I think that America needs to be protected from outside threats, but $600 billion a year? and increasing every year? what? I think there is a fine line between protecting our country and making a military safety bubble out of America.

2nd answer: "Yes." Now, I was told that the U.S. defense system actually benefits the economy. I think this might be a potential future problem. An economy that is dependent on one thing is double trouble (as we've seen with oil), and can only lead the economy into further turmoil. Also, if we cut spending, we won't necessarily be cutting military jobs, we would (SHOULD) be cutting the technology that goes behind weapons, seeing as we have the best in the world as of now.

3rd answer: "Yes." I understand that defense is a necessity, but so are shirts, and you don't see me spending $5,000 (how much per household it takes to protect the country) a year on those.

4th answer: "Yes." I understand that the world is a topsy turvy one, but (according to this article) we are the ONLY super duper country. As a super duper country, do we need to spend that much money on making sure we're safe? According to this, no one can touch America because of our CURRENT weapon technology state. Why not keep it like this? I don't think anyone can catch us for awhile...why don't we put that $600 billion a year towards something else?

Final answer: "Yes." Wow, this article really didn't change my opinion of anything at all. I thought I might find some "No's" in there, but apparently not. Maybe I'm just stubborn, who knows.

Who would I vote for?

If I was to vote this election year, I would probably vote for Barack Obama. Unfortunately for Republicans, it is a terrible time to be a Republican. Republican President George W. Bush has gotten our country into a war that now seems unnecessary, has gotten the American economy dependent on foreign oil, and has caused economic instability. Knowing this, I would probably not vote for another president that might repeat the past. I think John McCain has this ability, which is why I do not want to vote for him. McCain has voted for Bush about 95% of the time, and Bush's decisions obviously have not been the best for our country. I also do not agree with McCain on his program for education. I think that the No Child Left Behind Act needs to be reformed, and I think that kids should not choose wherever they want to go to school. If kids got to pick and choose where they want to go to school, it throws the American Dream right out of the window. Working hard to put your children through school was what Americans thrived on, and McCain is willing to give this all away.

That is why I want to vote for Barack Obama. Barack Obama's campaign focuses on change, which is what America needs right now. Barack Obama wants to decrease our dependence on foreign oil, and wants to push the manufacturing of Zero Carbon Emission Cars, going so far as to offer a rebate to those who buy them (McCain does offer the same thing, but Obama offers a higher tax credit, which tells me he wants to push the protection of our enviornment to a greater extent). Obama also wants to put money towards the sciences, which I think is a great thing to do. The subject of science in schools is getting less and less interesting, and I think that with more opportunities available to students, they will take advantage of them, which will give them future careers.
Barack also wants to pull out of Iraq, which I am for 100%. I think that this war now seems a little unnecessary, and that we should no longer endanger the lives of Americans. Obama also wants to resort to war as a last option, which I think is the best thing for America right now. If we get into another hasty war, I am afraid of what the consequences will be.

Overall, I would vote for Barack Obama based on what America needs now. America needs change, and I think Obama offers that.

Town-Style Debate

I think the format of the debate was not as efficient as I thought it would be. Going into the debate, I thought that the questions would have been better, so I assumed that both candidates were going to answer the questions less and less and instead focus on bashing each other. Turns out, the questions were not thought through, so they were equal to the moderator's questions in previous debates. Still, both candidates barely answered the questions, which really angered me. The questions weren't that hard, and yet they still focused on bashing each other. I wanted to jump into the TV and slap them both. What's so hard about answering questions about fixing the economy? It can't be that hard, in my opinion...

Vice Presidential Debate

Overall, I think that there was no distinct winner in the debate. Palin did succeed expectations, but that does not mean that she won the debate by any means necessary. I think that they both did not answer the questions what so ever. Rather, they just bashed each other's opposing party, which I think was suspected. It's hard to have a vice presidential debate because they are obliged to reiterate what the presidential candidate stands for. So, they can't really have their own ideas because it might contradict the presidential candidates, which would be viewed as political blashphemy.

I was really upset with how the debate played out. None of the VP candidates answered any of the questions, and they did not back up any info relevant to the questions. Rather, Biden ranted about how Obama was better than McCain, and Palin ranted for an hour about energy.
Honestly, I could care less about either VP candidate. This debate showed me that they only care about party bashing, rather than focusing on what they want to do in The White House.

Political Ad

I think that this is a good political ad because it shows the level of thought put into these types of ads. Now, not only are candidates mudslinging each other, but now they are mudslinging those who they associate with. By doing this, they can now say "if you don't approve of these people, then you shouldn't approve for this candidate," which I think is bogus. You are voting for a candidate, not for the people they hang out with on the weekend.