Filibuster Reform Threatens Senate

The articles I'll be referring to can be found here:

Boston.com

Washington Post Opinion

Weshington Post

What these three articles are talking about is the nefarious filibuster. A senate tactic that allows the minority party to block legislation, unless there are 60 senators to overturn said filibuster. Currently the Democrats have 53 seats, plus 2 Independents who are expected to caucus with the Democrats, while the Republicans have 45.



It seems obvious that the reason this is being talked about is because the GOP is filibustering much of the Democrats' proposed bills. So is it a good idea?

The Washington Post articles flesh out the story a bit more, and the WP Opinion article -- written by Richard A. Arenberg who apparently worked closely with both the House and the Senate -- in particular is very informative. The best highlights are as follows, first from the last link:

"Republicans say they filibuster legislation because Reid blocks them from offering amendments."

And second, from Arenberg's opinion piece:

"No one should be fooled. Once the majority can change the rules by majority vote, the Senate will soon be like the House, where the majority doesn’t consult the minority but simply controls the process. Gone would be the Senate’s historic protection of the minority’s right to speak and amend. In the House, the majority tightly controls which bills will be considered; what amendments, if any, will be in order; how much time is allotted for debate; and when and under what rules votes occur. Often, no amendments are permitted." 

So what it comes down to: Would it be good for the Senate to operate similarly to the House? That whatever the majority party is would simply have command?

I don't know.

Ideally, both parties would be able to compromise and work bipartisan manner, but it's a far from ideal world. Likewise, it seems that the filibuster is an important -- if frustrating -- tool in the checks-and-balances department from giving one party too much power. Thereby, theoretically, forcing cooperation and compromise. With it gone, and only needing a simple majority, there'd be no incentive.

Romney Cites "Gifts" as Reason He Lost

There are a bunch of articles about this, as well as the responses to this issue, all of which I'll be more or less referring to. They can be found here:

Washington Post Original Report

Washington Post Commentary How GOP Wants Romney Gone

More WP Commentary, re: Latino "Gifts"

Boston.com: Louisiana Gov.'s Response

This action on Mitt Romney's part in itself is pretty interesting if for no other reason than the attention it is garnering. While true that Romney just recently stepped out of the spotlight of the Presidential campaign, usually the losers of those campaigns are rarely heard from much, especially outside of their locality.

The most obvious way this connects to our class is found in the second article, the commentary written by WP's Chris Cillizza, about how the GOP wants Romney to go away. The highlights pertaining to my reasoning are where Cillizza writes:

"What Romney seems most interested in doing at this point is rehashing why he didn’t win — with an emphasis (at least in his comments to donors) on what was wrong with voters, not what was wrong with his campaign.  

That MO, while understandable for someone who has spent the last six-plus years of his life running for president, is tremendously problematic for a party that needs to get away from the stereotype that it is of, by and for white, affluent men even at a time of growing diversity in the country and the electorate... 

...To the latter point: While Democrats have Bill Clinton as their triager-in-chief, using his gravitas to help extend and articulate the Democratic brand, George W. Bush seems perfectly content to spend the rest of his days outside of the public spotlight in Texas. And, while John McCain remains an active force in the Senate, he was never someone that Republicans truly saw as one of their own. Now, in Republicans’ best case scenario, Romney is headed to that same path of obscurity."

From this, it seems obvious that the GOP is lacking any sort of true central figure. Former Presidents are ideal, but as Cillizza points out, Bush II apparently doesn't feel like it. This is something of an opportunity when observing from the perspective of New Media.

I'm sure there are many people who would like to see the GOP go in a more conservative direction. However, as pointed out by Romney's comments, this doesn't seem particularly tenable because the old, white men for this strategy are no longer necessary to produce a viable candidate. This also assumes that only old, white men are pushing for a more conservative GOP.

On the other side, it's probable that many people would like to see a more flexible Republican party. One obvious example is myself. While I consider myself a liberal and a progressive in terms of social issues, I also think of myself as a fiscal conservative. Unfortunately for me, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans completely cover these two issues. Thus, if there are enough people like myself, it wouldn't be unimaginable for a group to come along and push the GOP in this direction. Especially if they're somewhat blinded at the moment, groping in the dark for way to proceed without falling on their political face.

While I'm unsure as to whether this need to adjust one of the two major American political parties is rare, I do know it is an opportunity. Indeed, with the progress of New Media and the apparent need on the GOP's part to appeal to new and different demographics, it seems prime -- kairotic even -- for the Republican Party to fulfill that role.

Will this happen? I doubt it, especially when considering the forces-of-old, fearful of losing any power. Still, the opportunity is obviously there, and I for one am curious to see how the Grand Old Party will react.

Mind Over Mass Media

The article I'll be referring to is found on NYTimes.com. Unfortunately, NYTimes limits the amount of articles you can view in a given month. Thus, the second link provides a copy of the article on a secondary website, if the first -- the NYTimes article -- is unavailable to you.

NYTimes Version

Edge.org Version (same article)

This article in the NYTimes was published June 10, 2010. I found it by simply typing "New Media" into the search box at NYTimes.com on a lark. It stood out because it is written by Steven Pinker, who is a certified badass and a psycholinguist. What does that mean? He's smart and deals with language in addition to psychology. If I remember right, he also teaches at Harvard, and probably has numerous other accomplishments, such as published books.

This book is the reason that Steven Pinker stuck out to me: I was assigned his book on linguistic theory for a first year seminar class at UMass. Boston.

I found it curious that Pinker would be writing about New Media. Though once I thought about his writing, I thought it was a bit less strange. His book is fairly simple, easy to understand, and focuses on how language is more or less an evolutionary trait. That is why all human cultures, regardless of location, have a language. This evolutionary methodology lends itself fairly well to the grand idea of New Media. In his opinion piece, Pinker talks about how popular culture often reacts negatively to evolving methods of consumption and dispersal of information. He also notes that this is whether it be the printing press or Twitter. He also points out that this is merely a product of necessity: that while the amount of knowledge increases, the amount of hours in a day, or a person's given available time to sift through this knowledge, has not.

Thus, Pinker's point that this evolution in media is fairly important. Especially now with the advent of the glorious Information Age. Just how the printing press and the mass production of the Christian Bible helped propagate literacy in the Western world, these new electronic tools are helpful in promoting thought-sharing and knowledge-connectivity.

A final observation that interests me is that Pinker is talking to people who oppose this evolution. In his article (at least the NYTimes one) he cites one article on how Powerpoint is corrupting everyone, then another about how Twitter is the devil and shrinks attention spans. I find it odd and curious that I didn't really notice this before. This kind of opposition to New Media.

Or perhaps I just never took it seriously.

Halo 4 Conspiracy to Stop Youth Vote

The articles I'll be referring to can be found here:

Fox News

Kotaku

The first article is the original Fox News article referring to how video games are a menace (a commonality in Fox News) and how they're corrupting the youth of America. The second is from Kotaku, a useful if mediocre video game-centered news source.

This is probably best connected to Jenkins' Convergence Culture article in the way that popular culture is being linked with the public sphere. Likewise, the struggle of traditional media (in this case, Fox News) to oppose that swing toward popular culture.

Fox News' approach to this segment is poorly done in the sense that it deals with vague information, instead relying on a pathos-centered approach: Halo 4 is released on election day; Video games are bad for you. Therefore, Halo 4 will make you not vote.

The last line reads: "(and if you live in the US, don't forget to vote!)"

This facet is essentially another chapter in the method that video games serve as an exemplar of one sphere of popular culture being harnessed for use in the public sphere. This is particularly similar to how Xbox Live broadcast all of the Presidential debates. While true that some of the on-air questions posited by Microsoft in an apparently half-assed attempt to involve its users could use some ironing out, the tendency and the attempt are there which can only pave the way for more attempts down the line.

Infrastructure, but no Interest

The article I'll be referring to can be found here:

http://gizmodo.com/5958141/america-people-are-googling-who-is-running-for-president-right-up-to-the-end?utm_campaign=socialflow_gizmodo_facebook&utm_source=gizmodo_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

As the Gizmodo article points out, many voters weren't sure who was running for President until the very last minute. On the one hand, this is a kind of good news in the sense that people are apparently not paying attention to those filthy political ads. On the other hand, perhaps they'll pay attention to them more because they aren't aware of what is going on.

Regardless, the article is interesting primarily when observed in tandem with Levy's and Purdy's articles. Specifically, the idea that the infrastructure is already more or less available for people to come together organically. The internet's many user forums are proof of that, and if that's not enough, the 'net is rife with programmers and users just itching for a challenge. In this case, perhaps creating a more efficient or attractive method of coming together, as Purdy and Levy posit in their articles.

The problem is that most people apparently do not care to. For whatever reason, people seem to do the bare minimum when it comes to participation. This is perhaps a result from the traditional methods -- two established parties, the old media practices, etc. -- which evokes uninterest in most people. Despite this apparent phenomenon, there is another in the sense that the voting public is somewhat dissatisfied with with the traditional methods. By this reason alone, it seems fair to say that if it continues to ferment, inevitably some sort of action or reaction will take place to address it.

Though it does not seem to be that time quite yet.

E-Voting

The articles I'll be referring to can be found here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-thomson/could-romney-linked-elect_b_2025490.html

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/08/tech/web/online-voting/index.html

These two articles cover the concept of electronic voting. One primarily focuses on electronic machines taking votes, where the voter must physically still cast their ballot. The second focuses on the novel idea of casting a ballot completely through the internet.

The reason I highlight these two articles is primarily because of Purdy's observations regarding what he calls "author-users." This is also connected to the advent of publics and the changes to the public sphere mentioned in posts prior.

Purdy's observations, while interesting, inadvertently expose the necessity for an infrastructure for author-users to utilize in their participation. This is distinctly lacking in the Presidential election. Indeed, it is hampered by its very nature.

The idea of the popular vote being equalized across the population requires the easiest method to cast a ballot. This way, the egalitarian nature of voting would be all-accessible. However, this accessibility also gives rise to corruption. The CNN article does well to point out that even those who have no desire to influence the election proper would see the e-ballot as an opportunity to prove one's worth as a hacker.

This is also connected to the aforementioned article that focuses on voter participation per state. As society becomes more inter-connected and plugged in, it seems inevitable that the government would follow suit. And though the possibility is there, the methodology still requires much more work.

Is the Electoral College Out of Touch?

The articles I'll be referring to can be found here:

NYTimes

The Guardian

The Boston Globe

The commonality shared between the NYTimes, the UK's Guardian, and the Boston Globe is that all three talk about or touch upon the electoral college.

Some interesting preliminary information is that it's somewhat rare for a Presidential candidate to win the national popular vote, yet lose the Presidency because the electoral vote did not match up.

That aside, there has been lots of talk as to whether the electoral college has outlived its usefulness. The primary complaint seems to be that the focus is squarely on the so-called "swing states," whereas other voters are essentially ignored due to their state's electoral vote being already locked in. The article does well to point out that originally, the electoral college was created as a means to even the voting field for all of the states. This way, candidates wouldn't ignore small towns and states, instead merely campaigning in the big cities for the most votes. Ironically, this has happened anyway, only with swing-state cities and towns being the battlegrounds.

Another interesting facet to this developing argument is that several states have signed what is called the "National Popular Vote Interstate Compact." This basically says that a signing state promises to cast all its electoral votes for whoever wins the national popular vote. It is also important to note that this would only go into effect after the total number of signed states' electoral votes is higher than 270.

(Green = Signed into Law
Yellow = Pending Legislation
Grey = No Bill Pending)

One reason for this apparent behavior is the angry Presidential election of 2000, which is still a point of contention. Another is that due to the inter-connectivity via the internet and popular media, all votes would become equal in terms of worth. Whereas now, it would seem that swing-state votes are more valuable than those who are not swing-staters. Thus, a vote from rural Wyoming would be just as important as a vote from New York City.

This seems to be a bit more evidence toward Warner's concept of publics, in addition to Poster's article regarding "netizenship" and the evolution of the public sphere. People seem to want the ability to participate in government, or at least have the option there if they so choose. Likewise, this would require an evolution political media, so that candidates could reach all voters, rather than just the coveted swing-staters.

The closeness of the 2012 Presidential election is also a factor in the national popular vote outweighing  the electoral college. The 2000 Presidential election again being an example of the pitfalls a close election holds for the electoral college. A final facet that is also somewhat troubling is the concept of a national campaign to harvest the popular vote. Current campaigning practices are already somewhat filthy and prompt disgust. I can only imagine if that occurred on a national level without constraint.