College Tuitions: Obama’s plan on lowering costs

By: Lithda Phattaphone

Lately, I’ve seen posts about the outcomes of the election and Obama’s future plans for the U.S. I just wanted to throw out a topic that would relate most to us seniors. As senior year winds down to the day we graduate, college applications are already sent in and most of us are waiting to get accepted into a college. Once accepted into our desired college a bundle of mixed emotions consumes us. But then, reality kicks in and we have to start realizing that college isn’t cheap especially during times like this where the economy isn’t so great. The question here is, how must one pay for an overly-priced higher education?

Here’s a video on how it will work: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqJJzrFPb84

Attending college and furthering your education is a must during these times of struggle and hardship. It also is the starting path for our future. Prices for everything are increasingly rising and that also includes college tuitions. According to the article “Obama’s college tuition plans face tough fight,” the average tuition for a community college has raised 40% ($3,122 a year) and 68% for universities ($7,692 a year). With the increasing tuition prices to attend any type of college it is also a threshold for the students themselves paying off the loans they have borrowed to attend that school. President Obama plans on cutting the increasing values for college tuitions in the next decade. How will he do it?

You would think that trying to lower college funds would be an easy thing to do, right? Well, college tuitions have risen not only because of the recession of the economy but because of the ever growing demand of education in the workforce today, according to an article in TIME magazine:  http://business.time.com/2010/09/13/6-questions-about-college-so-where-does-the-money-spent-on-tuition-and-fees-really-go/. Most education experts say that Obama’s plans to lower these tuition costs are highly doubtful and it isn’t realistic. According to the article “Obama’s college tuition plans face tough times,” one of Obama’s officials wants to encourage states to start up a new grant program that will help cut costs. This is a very controversial idea because there are programs that are helping students already pay for their education and if the President wants to lower costs then the students can’t use those loans or grants given to them. Basically it’s like saying you can have money but you can’t use your money.

Personally, I would love to have college tuition costs lowered but in reality I know it won’t happen. The cost of a higher education was not as stressed as it is now just because in today’s time a higher education is needed to progress yourself to a higher level in your respective field. I agree with the educational experts that this plan the President has to lower educational costs is unrealistic. How is a school going to lower their costs? All the money that a student pays to go to college is to provide for their school athletic teams and to improve their programs. Now, I want to know what you guys think about Obama’s plan on lowering college costs. Do you think this is a possible idea? If not, how else do you think we can lower the cost of education?

Here’s a video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMU68_s66XI

Bibliography:

http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/17/pf/college/college-costs-obama/index.html

http://business.time.com/2010/09/13/6-questions-about-college-so-where-does-the-money-spent-on-tuition-and-fees-really-go/

Voter Turn Out

Voter Turnout

By Megan Murray

In the United States voting is a right, but not everyone takes full advantage of this right. Every election there are millions of people that do not vote, and silence their voice in politics.

Here is a graph of the voter turnout in each Presidential election since 1828:

Though the official figures from the 2012 election have not been released, the Bipartisan Research Center has stated that the turnout for 2012 was 57.5 percent of the eligible voters. This is a decrease from 2008, which they said was 62.3 percent.

Why are there so many eligible voters that don’t vote?

“A lot of people who don’t participate in U.S. elections don’t see a lot of difference between the parties and they don’t see their specific issues represented,” Sabatini told The Huffington Post. Though it seems like a bad thing, at least there is some security in this type of feeling. Their lives will not be turned upside down by the winner of the election and there is no fear of either candidate’s ideals. But this is not true for everyone. There are people that willingly choose not to vote.

Here is a graph of the main reasons registered voters do not vote:

There is no way to get the people that simply don’t care to start caring and vote, but there are other reasons that can be fixed.

There are six states with a voting turnout much higher than the national average. The other states should see their techniques and learn from them to up their own voter turnout.

The sixth highest state is Oregon. The main reason for Oregon’s high voter turnout, which is nearly 8.5 percentage points above the average, is the vote-by-mail only system. Voters receive an information pamphlet three weeks before the election, followed a few days later by their ballots. This means that Election Day is not one day, but almost two weeks, because each person has that much time to look over the ballet and make their decision.

South Dakota is ranked fifth in the nation. “South Dakota is part of the collection of Upper Midwest states where a strong sense of community, civic duty, and civility in political discussion are abundant,” Bryan Dettrey, an assistant professor at the University of South Dakota, writes in an e-mail. “These cultural factors contribute to higher levels of turnout.” This tradition has contributed greatly to the high voter turnout. “Voting behavior in a culture or community is an acquired habit,” Dr. Ostermeier says. “It doesn’t begin or end with one election cycle – it is generations in the making.” There are also close races in the state that make each person feel like their vote matters and that adds to the high number of voters.

Alaska’s eligible voter turnout rate – 60.42 percent – is attributed to competitive gubernatorial and senatorial races in the past several elections. A new Senate representative recently won as a write in candidate, and there are usually third parties running in most elections. This excitement in elections gets most people in Alaska out to the polls consistently.

Wisconsin has the third highest voter turnout percent in the United States. Some of Wisconsin’s history resembles that of South Dakota, and voting has become almost an expected behavior. The fact that voters can register on election day also increases the number of people that have to opportunity to vote and along with the close races recently.

Maine was the first state to institute same-day registration in 1973, which is a main reason for its 62.1 percent average turnout. Though there is rarely a third party candidate the two polarized parties are always in close races that really get people coming out to the polls.

The third Upper Midwest state on the list, Minnesota has had the highest voter turnout in 12 of the past 16 elections, including the past eight straight. Minnesota’s average eligible voter turnout in the past six elections – 67.6 percent – is 16.4 percentage points higher than the national average. This is mainly due to diminishing the barriers to vote. There is same day Registration and polling places that are easily accessible. Minnesota is also very patriotic so people feel how important the responsibility of voting really is.

In short states that make it easier to vote and consistently have close races generally have a higher voter turnout. It is important that every person has the chance to have their voice heard in politics. Some of these barrier breaking policies would be beneficial to spread to the rest of the country to increase the percent of votes and get everyone active and involved.

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/08/voter-turnout-latin-america_n_2093819.html

http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2012/11/05/why-dont-people-vote/

Electoral Vote

 By: Clark Varin

Electoral Vote

Many people wonder why our presidents are elected by the electoral vote instead of the popular vote. People shouldn’t be able to get elected if they don’t win the most amount of votes. For example George W. Bush won was elected president in the 2000 election over Al Gore but he was half a million people short of winning the popular vote. The strategy of winning electoral votes allows presidents to be elected when most of the people in the country would rather have the opposing candidate. Winning the presidency shouldn’t have to be a strategic process like a chess game. It should be as simple as convincing as many people as possible that you will be the best president.

            To understand the positive and negative side of the Electoral College we first need to look at the history of the Electoral College and its purpose—why was it was made? The electoral vote was made by the founding fathers to balance the power of each state. The fathers didn’t want a large state like Virginia to have full control over the president of the whole United States. The powers of each state needed to be distributed so that each state has a significant, but not too significant, influence in the election.

            As we know now there aren’t 13 states anymore there are 50, so is it still necessary to vote through an electoral college? Do we still need to balance out the states influence on the election? No, we don’t need to balance out the influences anymore because there are so many states now that the election balances itself out without the assistance of the Electoral College. There is no longer one dominant state that can win the whole election single handedly, the population is more distributed than it was. Therefore the Electoral College is an outdated concept that has only been kept around because it has always been tradition.

The reasoning behind the electoral vote is completely corrupt. A state that, for example, that casts 10 electoral votes shouldn’t have to vote all for one candidate. If 30% of the state’s population voted for candidate A and 70% for candidate B the 10 electoral votes that the state has shouldn’t all be cast for candidate B. The votes should be split up, 3 votes for candidate A and 7 votes for candidate B. The fact that the Electoral College doesn’t split up the votes of the state allows the candidates to get elected president even though there may be more people that wanted the opposing candidate.

Map of the Current Electoral College

There has been some thought about changing the system so that the person who has more people supporting them always wins guaranteed. To guarantee this the outdated concept of the Electoral College must get eliminated and the popular vote must be what influences the election.

There has already been a proposed bill that would change the current way that the Electoral College counts votes with still preserving the Electoral College. This new bill is called the National Popular Vote bill, it would “guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the United States.” But still “The bill preserves the Electoral College, while ensuring that every vote in every state will matter in every presidential election” (National Popular Vote). Though this bill that would change the minority presidents victories hasn’t been passed yet and we still remain with the same election process founded when there were just 13 states.

In this video Dr. Larry Sabato explains how the electoral college works and how it may or may not make sense to keep it around:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtYXlkpr1KE

Sources

http://americanhistory.about.com/od/uspresidents/f/pres_unpopular.htm

http://www.historycentral.com/elections/Electoralcollgewhy.html

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

Dress to Impress

By: Izzy B.

The Presidential election was underway last week and both parties were off to a good start. Republican Mitt Romney against our current President Barak Obama. Both sides had very good opinions and focus points to win over each state and each voter. However, there was more than just the opinions and the plans for the country that the voter notices. Would you vote for someone who looked like a slob or a bum? Probably not. Appearance was a very important factor in this year’s election. Critics have not been afraid to voice their opinions on the candidates clothing and how they feel that will impact the way voters viewed them. It is important to acknowledge factors such as the fitting of the suit or the color the first lady is wearing. It shows responsibility and power. The candidate who dresses the best, was sure to win over more hearts of the voters. But of course, other factors play a role in the end.

            For example, when we look back at the presidential debate we recognize that each candidate is wearing a suit. However, how they wear it matters. According to Bruce Pask: mens fashion editor of T: The New York Times Style Magazine, Romney rolls up his sleeves, showing that he is laid back which also appeals to the middle and lower classes. However, when we look at his running mate, Paul Ryan, Pask says that his suits are too big which make him look low maintenance and lazy also “in his mind, being a 42 is more manly than a 40. And yet what actually happens when a guy wears something too big is the obvious; he looks smaller, dwarfed by shoulders that are too big…” However, according to Emily Barnett: Parsons School of Design assistant professor, Romney and Ryan made smart choices when picking out their styles. She says “Romney’s choice of diagonals was smart because diagonals imply a strong sense of movement.” What a candidate wears matters, whether voters realize it or not. They know they want a strong President and he needs to be professionally dressed. But patterns and styles aren’t the only thing that makes up the “look” of a candidate.

            Colors play a very important role in the appearance of a person. According to a study on color psychology, Red is one of the strongest colors a person can show off. It symbolizes strength, evokes a powerful emotion of passion and energy and symbolizes blood, war, and pride. Blue is also one of the stronger colors. It is usually worn to symbolize creativity and intelligence. It is a color of loyalty, strength, wisdom and trust. Studies also show that it has a calming effect on the psyche. We often see President Obama wearing blue to symbolize his years of experience in the office and his loyalty to the country. In the very first debate, we saw Obama wearing a blue tie with a muted pattern which fell in line with his more laid back performance. We can also look at the color of each political party. Usually Republicans are represented by the color red as Democrats are represented by blue. We often see each candidate exhibiting these colors in their campaigns and mostly in their clothing choices.

            We often see each side wearing mutual colors as well. The color black symbolizes power and portrays one of class elegance and wealth. Both candidates wear black suits and show these qualities very well. White is also a common color advertised in politics. It is often associated with being pure, clean, fresh, and good.

            We don’t often think of the clothing someone wears as important to a decision we make. But as we look around in today’s society we see that we are all judgmental on just that. It matters on what someone wears. We are not going to vote for someone who wears their suits too big to look like a slob; or a candidate who rolls up his sleeves too often. The candidate who dressed the best surly appealed more to the voters, even if they didn’t realize it. It’s the little details that really count. 

"Mr. President, who are you wearing? - CNN.com." CNN.com - Breaking News, U.S., World, Weather, Entertainment & Video News. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Oct. 2012. <http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/15/living/presidential-fashion/index.html?hpt=hp_bn11>.

"Color Psychology, what do colors mean and represent." Web design agency that builds user friendly sites. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Oct. 2012. <http://www.digitalskratch.com/color-psychology.php>.

"Post's Sharpest Pundit Is Its Fashion Writer - Tags: BLOGS PRESIDENTIAL candidates." EBSCO Online Library Search Engine Directory - Find Articles, News, Periodicals and Other Premium Online Content. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Oct. 2012. <http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/excerpts/29327766/posts-sharpest-pundit-fashion-writer>.