The problem with today's condidates

As explained by wikipedia.org, Cthulhu is "a giant fictional being, one of the Great Old Ones in H.P. Lovecraft's Cthulhu Mythos.[1] It is often cited for the extreme descriptions given of its appearance, size, and the abject terror that it invokes. Because of this reputation, Cthulhu is often referred to in science fiction and fantasy circles as a tongue-in-cheek shorthand for extreme horror or evil."
He is also explained as the great father of the Chaos gods in some mythology, but the general point is that Cthulhu is as evil as it gets.

Now, while I think this is a bit of an (funny) exaggeration, this poster illustrates my point very well. When there is no candidate available who accurately represents me, my beliefs, my morals, my points of view, it is a little hard to swallow that if I want to be a part of our electoral process, I will have to "vote for the lesser evil". I don't want to choose between two bad candidates for who gets my vote, this is not the system I want to participate in. I want to choose between a diverse group of candidates and find one who shares my beliefs and morals, and give him (or her) my vote. Sadly, I have yet to see a single person running for president who I really truly wanted to vote for, and not just so I wouldn't have to deal with his opponent in office.

War Crimes

Perhaps I'm a little late in realizing the full implications of the torture and denial of basic human rights used on prisoners in Iraq, but according to tonight's reading (The American Anomoly, by Raymond A. Smith), "Congress and the public learned that the US military had been using torture and depriving detainees of due process rights in Iraq and elsewhere, and that Iraq had not, in fact, possessed weapons of mass destruction. Likewise, press reports revealed that the president had authorized the wire-tapping of phones withing the United States without obtaining judicial warrants, as required by the Fourth Amendment."
Now, I understand that Congress had been pretty much goin along for the ride at that point, but if we can impeach a president for having sex with another woman and then lieing about it (not exactly a high crime) shouldn't we impeach a president for violating not only the Constitution and the oath he took to defend it, but also the rights of the people that he governs only by consent?
I'm really at a loss here...

Civil rights in wartime

I must say that I strongly disagree with Supreme Court Judge Hugo Black on his opinion about the Korematsu v. United States.
The case was about a man of Japanese descent who refused to go to the detainment camps in 1942, was found guilty, appealed his case up to the highest court, and was still found guilty of refusing to submit to, in my opinion, racism.
I understand that in WWII the powers that be in our country decided that there was a national threat, and I think I agree with those who would say that national security against enemy countries is just as important as civil liberties because the government is protecting those rights and liberties against foreign enemies who would take them away.
But there is a limit to what I believe any government should be allowed to do to "protect" those freedoms. Benjamin Franklin once said something along the lines of "those who would give up their freedom to protect their safety deserve neither" and I believe that he was right. If, in trying to protect the rights of our citizens, we deny some of them rights, we have destroyed the very thing we hold so dear. Even to keep our citizens and country safe, to turn down the path of tyranny (which is what this amounted to) undermines everything that this country stands for, and all that it has that is worth protecting.
There were undoubtedly some Caucasian dissenters, and surely dissenters of every race and creed, but we focused our efforts only on people of Japanese descent. This is so incredibly unjust that it boggles the mind to think that the highest court in our country upheld discrimination like that. I am disturbed to think that we only abide by "innocent until proven guilty" when it suits our government to do so.

When a majority vote does not yield a president

I believe that if no clear majority is reached by popular vote, that the 2 front-runners should have a second election between them.
In 2000, it was said that a vote for Nader was a vote for Bush. This was because the people voting for Nader would most likely otherwise have voted for Kerry, and so he was taking Kerry’s votes. Had I been old enough to vote in that election, I would have voted for Nader because I felt that he was the best choice for president. But if he were not there, my vote would have gone to Kerry. I don’t want to be unable to vote for my first choice for president, for fear of screwing things up for my second choice.
A second, run off, election would fix that problem entirely.

A national primary instead of each state

If we were to have a national party primary instead of doing it state-by-state, it would solve the problem of each state wanting to front-load to increase tourism and publicity (like Michigan and Florida this year). But it brings us to the problem of small states being ignored. If we were to have a national primary, there would really be no front-runner decided by the first states, and so candidates would probably ignore the states with fewer votes, deciding that the smaller states like the Dakotas are not important.
If we were to use the internet to campaign instead of television and personal visits, this might solve that problem altogether. Candidates could reach each given state through the internet, getting their message and face out there, and small states wouldn’t be ignored.
In the same way that television changed the way that we vote and who we choose for president, internet would surely make a difference in what we look for in a candidate, but I see nothing wrong with voting evolving along with technology.

Question time with the President

John McCain has brought up the possibility of having something similar to the British Prime Minister’s Question Time in our country, with our President. Now, several issues were raised in class about how our politicians are neither witty nor brief, and that with a set term of office, question time might not do anything but lower a President’s effectiveness. And that something like this might change the way we vote completely. I’m not sure that changing the way we vote right now would be an entirely bad thing, but to pick a president based on his ability to grandstand and perform entertainingly, over maybe the ability to compromise or be diplomatic, might be a bad choice.But if we were able to enforce a time limit without crippling any specific person or side, it might be a really good idea. The majority of my generation gets most of their news from comedians like John Stewart and Steve Colbert. We prefer our news with entertainment, and if Question Time were to be instated in the United States, we would be much more likely to watch, and maybe learn about current issues and form our own opinions. Now, whether politicians want my generation making their own opinions or whether they want to be able to use advertising to sway the crowd, is a whole other issue

Executive power vs. accountability

When comparing our form of democratic government to other types of government altogether, like the British parliamentary government, it is easy to see that each was picked for very different reasons, and that each has its own strengths and weaknesses.
I find the idea of the "Prime Minister's question time" very interesting and I would love for our president and perhaps higher cabinet members to have to come before an audience and justify their actions. I would love to see a mother who has lost her child to the war in Iraq be able to face our great and fearless leader and for him to have to explain to her why her child is dead, for him to have to face tears and grief in person. I think that people who are opposed to systems in our country and who have been wronged by them should be able to bring their concerns directly to man himself, and not just write to their congressperson and watch nothing change. I think that anyone should be able to question the people that make decisions high up in our government face to face, and be able to get answers.
But I would not trade our balance of power for it. The thought of one man being able to do just about anything with our country, as long as he was determined and willing to deal with the political consequences, is just terrifying