Why the United States is Not a Democracy?

The United States is not a Democracy? What an outrageous claim to make! Or so it would seem...

In fact, the United States of America is actually a Republic. The other terms bandied about amongst political scientists are "Representative Democracy" and "Constitutional Republic". And this isn't just a dictionary-zealot splitting hairs here; there are very important distinctions between a pure Democracy and what we have in the USA. And confusing the issue can actually lead to gross mistakes.

For instance, in the 2000 Presidential election, if you (hypothetically) didn't like George Bush but didn't trust Al Gore, you might have cast a vote for Ralph Nader on the belief that you were at least voting against the other two candidates. In fact, what you actually did was throw your vote away, because of the Electoral College system. Each state has a certain number of electoral votes, and the candidate who gets the most votes in a state gets all the electoral votes for that state, even if they only win by one vote.

Your electorate would have just counted the votes in your precinct until a clear winner emerged, then gone to the Electoral College and voted for the winner. That's what it boiled down to: one vote from each precinct. A vote for Ralph Nader did not cancel out a vote for George Bush.

In the more general scheme of things, the United States is a Republic because we have a representative government. Individual citizens do not get to directly vote on every detail, from whether we go to war to whether we have a seat-belt law. All we can do with a vote is appoint Congress members, Governors, Mayors, Senators, and yes, Presidents, too.

Once elected, those representatives can do whatever they please. They can say whatever they want when they campaign to get elected, but after you've voted them in, they aren't bound to represent you in the slightest. You can get them impeached for breaking a law or an oath of office, but there is no specific rule that says they have to keep every promise they made when they got elected.

Furthermore, in a direct democracy, the laws which are passed must be obeyed. In a Republic, the laws get interpreted by a third branch, which is the Judicial System. The court is free to throw out, rule against, or even just ignore a law if it finds the case is just and the law unfair. This is why everybody who commits adultery in California isn't in jail - there is a law against that, though, but it's ignored.

You're probably asking yourself, why is it that we don't have a direct democracy, then? Well, when the country was founded a mere 230 years ago, the device you're reading this on hadn't been invented yet. The same goes for cars, telephones, television, telegraphs, and radio. Where was communication technology when the Declaration of Independence was signed? The Gutenberg printing press. Ships on the ocean were sending signals by firing cannons and raising flags. On land, we had pen, paper, and the Pony Express.

Now imagine how long it would take to get anything done if we were to insist on collecting the informed opinion of every single citizen across the country in order to do every single thing, using only letters delivered by horse. You're right, it would be impossible!

You might now ask, "Well, now we can transmit information everywhere at the speed of electricity. Why can't we change to a direct democracy and throw out all of this red tape?" Not so fast! There are experimental ideas being tossed around about this already - one of them is the Unity08 party and another one is the National initiative to allow for ballot initiatives at the Federal level, being proposed by Congressman Mike Gravel, who is running for President in 2008.

However, even the boldest of these isn't proposing to implement a pure and full Direct Democracy right away. Do you, as a citizen, want to travel the world meeting with foreign leaders to decide if you want to do business with them or grant their request for aid? Would you have had the time to read every page of the hundreds of bills passed by Congress last year? And most of these on trivial matters such as how much funding to grant a program, what to name a bridge, whose face goes on the next commemorative coin, or who to appoint to the Spotted Owl Conservation Commission.

There's a lot to organizing ourselves as a group of 300 million people than you'd at first think. Simply put, we aren't built like ants or bees; nature didn't intend for us to act as a hive-mind. Humans are great in small groups, but even getting all of us together, such as in a Nationwide census or even in the Board of Directors at a corporation, is beyond us. Humans don't scale.

Humans don't scale. That's why we have the closest thing to a Direct Democracy - a Constitutional Republic!

Where the Candidates Stand on International Politics?

When the Soviet Union collapsed in the early 1990's bringing the Cold War to and end, there was a lot of celebrating and flag-waving. But some very sensible throats in the back gave a nervous gulp. Because the inevitable aftermath of this was that the United States was left as the only standing Superpower. And with great power comes great responsibility... and a target pinned to your back.

Since then, as a nation we've taken stances ranging from well-intentioned busybody to pillaging pirate, without a great deal of minding our own business. Of the 1.4 million active U.S. military personnel, over 369,000 are deployed outside of United States soil in over 40 countries. Of course, that's counting Afghanistan and Iraq, the two main countries we have a conflict in, as well as several peace-keeping actions. Also not counting little visits where we're just dropping by for tea.

With all of these muddy footprints we're leaving around the globe, American foreign policy is a more delicate matter than ever before. Our next President has no time to learn on-the-job; they will be handed at least two combat zones, and be expected to do something with them.

Of the leading Presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton probably has the most international sense. Her extensive experience as First Lady and her years in the Senate have given her an upper hand in handling foreign matters as deftly as she can handle domestic ones. If America's vital national interests are threatened, she says she will not hesitate to use force. She favors a diplomacy-first stance, however. She wraps up her whole approach to diplomacy with a statement, "America must be guided by a preference for multilateralism, with unilateralism as an option when absolutely necessary.”

In other words, she's playing it safe. Playing it safe might seem boring to some, but after eight years of "shock and awe", most of us are ready to settle down with a safety-player. We can only punish the world for 9/11 for so long.

The main candidate on the Republican side is Rudy Giuliani, and he is the polar opposite. He states clearly that "We are all members of the 9/11 generation." He says that civilization itself is under attack. He has even said that America can win in Iraq, as it would have won in Vietnam had the power base not lost its collective nerve. He has stuck to being a complete hawk candidate all the way, and will essentially be the new George Bush as far as foreign policy goes.

Mitt Romney scores on a different card. Ever the efficient businessman with his eye on the bottom line, Romney has said that he would re-organize the agencies that conduct foreign policy to make them more effective and less costly. Well, yes, with the country deeply in debt and still shoveling money all over the globe, maybe we could put that foreign affairs budget on a diet. However, Romney is still hawkish on military actions, so no wimpy Iraq pull-back or stepping down in Cuba for him.

Back to the Democrats, Barack Obama is a deep thinker who has the advantage of being a racial mix as well as an international upbringing; it's hard to see him visiting a country and not blending in. Obama is all over the place when answering questions about foreign policy: yes here, no there, maybe over there. Of course, he is thinking about countries on a case by case basis, rather than mushing all countries outside the United States into a faceless "them", as many candidates - and voters for that matter - tend to do.

Turning once again to the Republicans, we have John McCain. McCain is moderately hawkish. With his impressive military background, he has a view of war and knows the realities of decision-making that few of the other candidates can fathom, let alone match. He would not pull out immediately from Iraq, but there is no doubt that if anybody can come in with an exit strategy, he can. On other matters, he is slower to answer; he has more years as a soldier than as a diplomat.

As for the rest of the candidates, we can draw a lot from the polls. Only Huckabee, Hunter, and Tancredo are in favor of Guantanamo. Hunter and Tancredo join Giuliani and Romney in being pro-torture. Only Gravel, Kucinich, and Richardson oppose building a border fence. Only Gravel and Kucinich would not consider military action against Iran, while Obama ponders with a mixed opinion. Candidates fall nearly along party lines regarding Iraq.

What the Presidents Did Before They Entered Politics?

Obviously, most if not all of our Presidents have held another office before being elected to the Oval Office - just like any good organization, Americans prefer somebody who works their way to the top. And it is true that many of our Presidents have been born in well-to-do families, despite the founding father's desire to break away from the concept of a ruling class. However, many Presidents have some interesting stories to tell in the private sector workforce, before they ever even set foot in a government building.

One big obvious answer is apparent. Of the 43 Presidents we have had up until 2008, 25 have been lawyers. That's a staggering ratio of 58%. Not only that, but every major candidate that we have now running for President in 2008 also holds a law degree, and several of them have practiced law. Obviously, the first thing you should do if you want a shot at the Presidency is obtain a Juris Doctor.

Another career that isn't surprising is soldier; seven of our 43 Presidents served in some capacity of the armed forces before seeking office. Several more have served in the air force of navy - George W. Bush, Sr., was a pilot, and Jimmy Carter was a sailor, both having earned their way up to Navy Lieutenant.

Of all the Presidents, Thomas Jefferson had the longest resume with six careers outside of politics; he had been a writer, inventor, lawyer, architect, farmer. You might be wondering what he invented? The first swivel chair, along with other innovations he put in when he designed his famous home, Monticello.

Contrary to the old chestnut about how actors make great politicians, only Ronald Reagan actually had an acting career before becoming a politician, so one test case isn't very good proof.

Only three Presidents had a previous occupation as writer. One of those being Thomas Jefferson, who almost certainly never got paid directly as a writer, but did his writing in the course of documenting and directing the early childhood of our government. As for Kennedy, his writing was actually helping his father, Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr., complete his memoir of his three years as United States Ambassador to the United Kingdom. As for Jimmy Carter, he has written 23 books, being the only President who qualifies as a professional writer. Granted, all but two of these were written after, and not before, his Presidency.

One other writing career is Benjamin Harrison, who was a journalist by way of having been a court decisions reporter of the Indiana Supreme Court during the time that he was studying law.

While we're on the subject of Jimmy Carter's career, let's clear something up: that title of "peanut farmer" was an exaggeration. He helped out on his parent's peanut farm as a young boy. He shows no evidence of having desired to make a career out of it, and it looks like he gave it up after an accident with some equipment left him with an injured finger.

Harry Truman was the only other President who was also a farmer, although several - particularly the early ones - were owners of plantations. his father was actually the farmer, but Truman worked there for some of his childhood, then went off to finish school and seek his fortune in clerical jobs before returning to the family farm in 1906 and staying on to work there for 11 years, at which point he joined the military. He returned from World War I, married his sweetheart, and opened a haberdashery, making him the only men's clothing retailer on the Presidential list. The farm went bust during the Great Depression.

Andrew Johnson worked briefly as a tailor. He was apprenticed to a tailor at the age of 10, and by age 16 he and his brother ran away to the city, where he found work as a tailor and stayed at it until he'd finished his teen years. Then he entered politics as an alderman.

And, contrary to what you might expect given the poor separation of church and state in the U. S., there has been exactly one member of the clergy to later get elected President - James Garfield, who was a minister and an elder for the Disciples of Christ sect of the Christian Church. He preached his first sermon in Poestenkill, New York.

What Kind of Campaign Can We Expect From the Candidates?

At this point, the front runners for each of the parties are beginning to make themselves evident - and they've already taken a few swipes at each other in the press. So, since we're about to get to the fun part of campaign commercial seasons, it's worth taking a look at how each of the candidates will use their advertising dollars to get their message out to the public. This is actually predictable to an extent, since we have a good character record to go by.

Clinton - Expect a very positive message of hope. Clinton's focus is on domestic and family issues, with a generous dose of Civil Rights. She may run the occasional attack ad, but then only to compare her opponent's record and stand on the issues to her own. She can do very well with ads revolving around health care, happy children, ending the war to bring the troops home to their families, and improving education. She will have to earnestly defend herself on her foreign and economic policy. If she doesn't get at least one "tax-and-spend Democrat" salvo fired at her, the other candidates just aren't trying.

Obama - Obama is Mr. Positive. If he does run an attack ad, it would be a very dumb move, because one thing he isn't is a shark. He's doing good with a squeaky-clean campaign so far. He has a lot of answers about foreign policy, and he will most likely focus on matters beyond our borders and making a stronger U.S. economy in the sphere of the global market. He will have to work hard to prove that he's "all-American", because of his racial mixture and multicultural background. He might be smart to counter with the point that there's more to America than white Europeans, and that the U.S. needs to be aware of what's going on outside its borders.

Edwards - Bringing up the rear, Edwards has a long fight ahead and not so much strategy ready. Expect him to get very feisty if he wants to make a serious effort. We've seen Edwards campaign before, and advertising is his weak spot. In his previous run, he lost to the lack-luster John Kerry and was out-charisma'd by the animated Howard Dean. He has shown great awareness on Internet issues, so he would be wise to connect with the web-savvy voters. He will also magnify concerns over taking care of our own citizens. He focuses a lot on Hurricane Katrina victims, but he has to be careful not to be cornered behind it like Giuliani is with 9/11.

Giuliani - Expect the dirtiest possible campaign. It's going to be a challenge for Giuliani to do anything but attack, seeing as how his sole political experience is being a bulldog prosecuting attorney and being a mayor in a city that just happened to have a terrorist attack at the time. Like the Bush administration, his biggest club is fear. Fear of terrorism has done good in past campaigns, but Americans outside of the trailer-park set aren't so easily spooked any more. Giuliani will have to hustle to show that he has a domestic policy, and he would do well to get in a publicity shot or two of kissing babies and petting puppies, to show he has a softer side. You could almost make a drinking game out of how many times he says "9/11" on any given day.

Huckabee - Expect to be beaten over the head with a gold-plated cross. Huckabee seems to be convinced that there's nobody in America except Christian Conservatives, so that's his campaign. Attack ads based on morality issues aren't just expected, but guaranteed. However, his campaign will fall short if he tries to get voted in solely on the assurance that he won't let any gays get married. His most recent ad, in which he lists sexually aberrant behavior with a list lumping "homosexuality, pedophilia, sadomasochism, and necrophilia" together as one block of behaviors he's fighting to oppose, has already come under fire for being more like the Spanish Inquisition than an American political campaign.

Romney - Kind of a wild card, here. Romney is a businessman, and he plays down his Mormon religion and the values which derive from it, even though he votes them just the same. Expect a Huckabee campaign without as much dirt in it, but with a lot more money. Romney is wealthy and self-made, and he doesn't want anybody to forget it. Expect him to dive into economic and fiscal policy issues, spend some time on civil liberties he'd like to put down, and the promise of a smoother, leaner, more efficient government. He's most likely to hurl the "tax-and-spend" petard at his opponents.

McCain - Mr. Nice Guy. McCain has run before, and many contend that the only reason that he lost his former Presidential run is because voters were more comfortable with George Bush. Expect a campaign focused on the military and national defense, with a dose of his impressive military record. He's been the "dark horse" for a long time, and if he expects to win, he needs to make a serious commitment to running his campaign sharper and more aggressively than his opponents. He's also the only Republican candidate that can connect well with Liberals, so he would be wise to try to maximize that appeal. His weak spot is his own humility.

What is the Libertarian Party?

In the United States, the two-party system has been so all-encompassing of American politics as to nearly obliterate all traces of an option. Recent criticism has been directed at how the two parties are actually the same one, with words like "Republocrat" and "Demican" used as derogatory names for the two main parties. However, the system has been on the edge of accepting the Libertarian party into the mainstream. It has teetered tantalizingly close, without going all the way, and it has done so for a long time.

The Libertarian party was only founded in 1971, yet it has been the most successful of the third-parties, with more members in office than the rest of the alternative parties combined. It has mayors, county executives, county-council members, school-board members and other local officials, all filling current seats.

The Libertarian point-of-view encompasses many points left out of the Liberal and Conservative platforms. Basically, it favors taking the concept of government that we know, and shrinking it. Less regulation of markets, less regulation of society, abolishing many laws, and being non-interventionist in foreign policy as well are all typical attitudes of the Libertarian party. If a citizen ever wonders "What is the government doing sticking its nose into so many places where it doesn't belong?", then they might want to give the Libertarian party a try.

Here are the key points of the Libertarian party's policies:

* Reducing the state's role in the economy. This means things like privatizing (or even abolishing) social security and welfare, but also less regulation of business and industry.

* Strong civil liberties. A sweeping "butt out" to the government, leaving the individual with the highest possible freedom of speech, association, and sexual choice.

* Reduction of gun-control laws, and the general freedom to defend oneself and personal property in any permissible fashion. Lumped in with this is protection of property rights.

* Abolition of laws against consensual, victimless crimes. Basically this would make drugs legal, plus other activities such as prostitution, gambling, driving without a seatbelt, and so on. Generally, the idea is that if it's not going to hurt anyone but the people involved and they're willing to take that risk, then it should be theirs to take.

* No military draft.

* No intervention in foreign affairs. This would put a stop to the global occupation of the countries of the world by military bases, no embargoes or other impediments to free trade with other countries. In other words, minding our own business.

While the main tenets of the Libertarian party have a mixture of ideas that appeal to both Liberals and Conservatives, Libertarians assert that they are neither Conservative nor Liberal, but have a unique philosophy that is all their own.

There are certainly pros and cons to the Libertarian way of managing a country, and for this reason many voters shy away from parts of it. Of course, as with the Republicans and Democrats, not every Libertarian politician votes straight down the party line. Variations are present, most commonly in the two areas of abortion rights, with some otherwise Libertarian members staying "pro-life" (or "anti-choice"), and in fiscal policies such as welfare and social security, which is commonly referred to as "having an economic safety net". The variations are often referred to as "Conservative Libertarian" and "Liberal Libertarians". However, critics variously refer to Libertarians as "right of right" or "left of left", representing a meeting of the extremes of both parties.

A more grave accusation from critics is that Libertarians are great at throwing out parts of the government they don't like, but not so good at coming up with alternative solutions. For instance, deregulating industry is all very fine, but what will we do when we have a massive monopoly that dominates our lives, as has been the case with Microsoft corporation? Giving permission to responsible individuals to "party" with all the drugs they want may seem like a great liberty, but what is society to do with all of the overdosing drug addicts putting a burden on the health care system? And replacing welfare with private charities sounds good, but who's going to pay for the charity, and who's going to make sure that they really help those who come to them for aid?

In conclusion, it is not to be said that Libertarianism is perfect or that it solves all problems, and not even it's most vocal partisans claim that this is so. However, increased liberty does sound like at some point, it could be a welcome breath of fresh air into our stodgy two-party system which has gone on virtually unchanged for more than a century. Especially for those who detest having the government be a "nanny state", Libertarianism might be worth a try.

What is the Green Party?

In the United States, the two-party system has been so all-encompassing of American politics as to nearly obliterate all traces of an option. Recent criticism has been directed at how the two parties are actually the same one, with words like "Republocrat" and "Demican" used as derogatory names for the two main parties. However, a new party has come onto the scene: the Green Party. This party has been gaining acceptance and slowly getting more news coverage. So what is it, and what does it stand for?

The Green Party is based on the principles of Green politics, a political ideology which places importance on ecological and environmentalist issues, while trying to achieve these goals through broad-media-based, grassroots, participatory democracy and decisions made in consensus. Beyond the mere advocacy of environmental causes, they also advocate non-violence and peace, and social and civic liberties. The philosophy is that these issues are inherently related to ecological, social, and human bodily health.

If you remember the posters back in the sixties that said "War is bad for flowers and other living things", that's part of the point - not just about flowers, of course, but that war is bad for people, nations, and the economy, too. That last claim might seem counter-intuitive, because national economies have surged when they were at war in the past. However, the keyword that doesn't apply any more is "national"; this is the 21st century, where the global economy is the dominant reality. This takes the fact of war between nations down to the same effect that a gang war in your neighborhood would have. Sort of.

In fact, the "Four Pillars of the Green Party" explains it better. Ecology is not just a matter of choosing "paper or plastic", but a long-term issue which will eventually require the overhaul of our whole society, as a global community. Social justice looks to stamp out every form of discrimination based on distinctions between class, gender, ethnicity, or culture, preferring instead an egalitarian outlook. Grassroots democracy is participatory democracy, and is embraced by Greens as the only reliable governance model; it is possible to cut the bureaucracy from our government models and run things by direct participation through the communications infrastructure. Finally, non-violence reflects the Green's policy of rejecting violence as a means to overcoming its opponents.

In short, the Green party's core beliefs really aren't that new after all. They borrow heavily from leaders such as Gandhi and traditional beliefs of the United States, such as the Quakers who were here to found this country when it began. Furthermore, the movement is also aimed at helping the United States be a better neighbor to the rest of the world, and enter into a spirit of cooperation with nations founded largely on Buddhist and Hindu beliefs. American Christians who reject the religions and beliefs of "foreigners" need look no farther than Jesus Christ's Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel of Matthew chapters 5-7 - Green party beliefs are actually Christ's teachings as well, albeit forgotten ones in the United States.

Interestingly, almost every nation on Earth with a democratic system now has a Green party established. They have sprung up all over the globe for the past thirty years, with Canada, Peru, Norway, South Africa, Ireland, and Mongolia all having strong Green parties.

However, the uniquely American culture of hostile xenophobia makes the Green party a difficult thing to establish here. The United States is home to some of the most intolerant groups in the world, with declared wars on races, nations, religions, beliefs, and even the most trivial, inconsequential, and harmless practices. Can a nation filled with angry bigots learn to love and coexist in peace with the rest of the world?

If not, we can always take solace that if the rest of the world goes Green, we don't have to worry about a war. After all, Green is non-violent.

Urban Legends of the Presidency

When the United States was first founded, it took a while for them to concede to even have a President at all. It was believed that having one central executive figure would be too much like having a king - something they still shuddered at the thought of. Well, in terms of how kingdoms tend to inspire legends, they were at least partly right - quite a bit of folklore has grown up around the office of President. Let's get to the bottom of some of these and sort the truth from the balderdash.

Did Jimmy Carter see a UFO?

Well, the former President certainly seemed to think he did. He filed a report with the Center for UFO Studies in Evanston, Illinois, in September of 1973. The report claimed that in October, 1969, Mr. Carter and a group of a dozen people spotted a hovering object in the sky. For a period of between ten and twelve minutes, it slowly changed in color, size, and brightness, before it disappearing from view, apparently by retreating into the sky. Later analysis has it that what was witnessed was the planet Venus and some peculiar atmospheric conditions that made it look funny. Typically.

Did Ronald Reagan believe in astrology?

In a word, no. His wife and First Lady Nancy Reagan did, however. Chief of staff Donald Regan revealed that Nancy would consult with an astrologer when setting up travel plans. This got hooked by the media who made it sound like Ronald himself was directing national policy out of the newspaper astrology columns. Reagan himself said of the incident, "The media are behaving like kids with a new toy - never mind that there is no truth to it." It is suspected that Nancy Reagan developed a superstitious fear of her husband traveling after the attempt at his assassination.

Are Presidents members of a secret "Skull and Bones" society?

No, but a few of our Presidents and Presidential candidates have been members. Despite the ominous name, "Skull and Bones" is one of dozens of collegiate secret societies, which are really nothing but high-society frat clubs for graduates, and it is even only one of eleven current secret societies at Yale University. Rest assured that the sole purpose of a college-based secret society is to make people wonder why you have one and what goes on in there. "Skull and Bones" is very well-documented in online references, complete with pictures of their meeting place. The rumors fly around about their supposed rituals, but if they don't like that, they have no one to blame but themselves for their silly game.

Was there a curse on Presidents elected in a zero year?

The legend of the curse grew up around the fact that, indeed, seven Presidents in a row who were elected in years ending in zeroes did die in office, four from assassinations and three from natural causes. That would be enough to make anyone leery. Reagan, however, was elected in 1980 and survived his terms and long after as well, so whatever "curse" there was may now be considered broken.

Does the taller candidate win the election?

This myth has been investigated and debunked, with hard evidence to bust it, but people still think that there is a statistical bias towards taller candidates. While there is evidence at this point that winning candidates have an inch or two on average over the loser, people seem to forget that the small sample is likely to produce skewed results. We have only had 43 presidents of the United States so far, and in a statistical sample that short, you could make up almost any hypothesis about winners vs. losers - the one with the longest name, the one with the darker suit, the one with a fuller head of hair - and find some justification. There's also a theory that white males from rich families always win elections, which is so far slightly more sustainable.

Did Zachary Taylor die from eating a bowl of cherries?

The conditions surrounding his demise in office are certainly poorly documented. The cause of death is officially "cholera morbus" which pretty much includes food poisoning from bacteria, cholera, dysentery, and other illnesses from eating a nasty bug or spoiled food. The diagnosis held even after an autopsy in which he was exhumed to rule out assassination. Remember that it was the mid-1800's, and food safety and sanitation practices weren't very modern. Heat stroke has also been cited as a factor, since he was attending a July 4th celebration at the time he fell ill. In any case, just before he died he did eat cherries, along with some milk, green apples, and pickled cucumbers, so it might have been any of those.

Unusual United States Political Parties

What, are the only parties you know about Democrat and Republican? Oh, so you're heard of the Libertarian and Green parties? No, think even more obscure. The United States has hundreds of political parties; quite a few of them have even put up a candidate. Even recently! But let's take a look at some of the more... ah, unusual parties out there.

The Prohibition Party -

Yes, you guessed it, this party is for banning alcohol. Not drugs or other substances - just alcohol. They were actually much bigger at the turn of the last century. The party was founded in 1869, and was instrumental in getting states and counties to outlaw alcohol. This party also gave us the United States' first female mayor - Susanna M. Salter, of Argonia, Kansas, in 1847.

The Unity08 Party -

Very new, it was founded in 2006. But hear them out: they are expressing the idea that we no longer need as much big bureaucracy in our voting process. Using the Internet, we could conduct a secure, online vote to directly engage in setting national policy, instead of having some faraway representative do it for us. This makes sense when you consider that our founding fathers were limited to the Pony Express to communicate cross-country - they had no choice but to elect representatives, because it would have been impossible to poll every citizen to approve every law. Today's electronic communications makes representative democracy a relic, and direct democracy a very possible scenario!

The America Party -

So, it's just them? What does that make the rest of us, the non-American Party? Actually, they're a hyper-conservative group, which has put up a candidate in every Presidential election since 1976. That candidate was Thomas J. Anderson, who pulled the most votes of the party's history, with 161,000 votes putting him in 6th place. Since then, they've kinda fizzled.

Christian Falangist Party of America -

Long story short, they're Christian Libertarian-Marxists - kinda. Founded in 1985. If you think the Freemasons are weird with their funny symbols and secret handshakes, you'll get a similar case of the willies from this party. The Falangist party itself originated in Spain in the 1930's, and their principles were to establish a corporate state controlled by unions, adherence to Roman Catholicism, and Marxist-type beliefs. Complete with funny symbols and a secret society. Now bring it to America, and you have to make it Christian. Aren't you glad they didn't win?

The Personal Choice Party -

Like nothing you expected. Their logo is a yellow smiley face. They were founded in 2004 in Salt Lake City, Utah, and their candidate actually qualified for the ballot in that year. The creator of the party is a doctor with a Ph. D. in Zoology from Brigham Young University. If a Mormon zoo-keeper sounds like a scary person to allow to control the government, check out their principles: "Personal Choice demands that as long as I am not hurting anyone else, only I have the right to choose how I spend my time, my wealth, my life, my honor." See, you like them already!

Independence Party of Minnesota -

Of course, you know them. They're the party of Minnesota's former-Governor Jesse Ventura, who served 1999–2003. But they were founded in 1992, so they've actually put up several candidates, mostly mayors and representatives and such.

The Whig Party -

Don't flip your whig (sorry!), but they actually got four Presidents elected - William Henry Harrison in 1841, John Tyler from 1841 to 1845, Zachary Taylor from 1849 to 1850, and the ever-popular Millard Fillmore from 1850 to 1853. The Whig party's goal was protectionism and a government dominated by Congress, since they felt the other branches weren't being balanced well. A party that could only have formed in the country's infancy.

The American Vegetarian Party -

Oh, brother, they need their own special party just for them! Founded in 1947, they held conventions and nominated candidates for President and Vice-President in several elections, but never seemed too serious about it, and of course, never got anybody into office.

Understanding the Electoral College

The ground shook in the year 2000, as the cries of outrage rang across the United States. "What do you MEAN the popular vote didn't win!?!?!" One could hardly blame the citizens for being shocked; the last time this happened was in 1888! The Electoral College vote had over-ridden the popular vote. George Bush was going into office... by the grace of just five electoral votes, despite having gotten 543,816 fewer popular votes than Al Gore. Even some of the people who voted for Bush were mad... because no matter who won, it was obvious that something was awry.

To understand the invention of the Electoral College, we have to look at the circumstances under which it was created. The founding fathers faced the unique difficulty of how to elect a president in a newly formed nation. Where they'd come from, there were only kings, so they had no practical experience; they had to wing it. The country at the time was made up of 13 states of varying sizes. Each of them had their own laws and powers. Everybody had just come through a scary revolution and still had a phobia about powerful, centralized governments.

The country consisted of a mere 4,000,000 citizens spread over hundreds of miles of Atlantic coastline, with no transportation but ships and horses, and none of the modern communication technology that we enjoy today.

Keep in mind also that many citizens were slaves, and many more were women.

The Constitution Convention met together and hashed this out. They debated several methods of electing a president. Eventually, the members settled on an indirect election of the President through the College of Electors. Remember that they only knew monarchy where they came from? So they got the idea from the Catholic Church; it, too, selects a new Pope using a College of Cardinals! In a hierarchical system in which the most informed and knowledgeable individuals would guide the process, the College would select the President based on merit alone, and not on what state he was from or what political party he was in.

It looked good on paper. And when's the last time you'd heard somebody complain about how the Pope got elected?

So it got set down in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution. Each state would get a set amount of Electors. Kind of like the rules for doling out armies in the board game Risk, it didn't matter how the rules for dispensing Electors was set up, so long as it was fair enough. So they decided that allotted Electors would be based on the number of Representatives in each state, plus two for each state's Senators. Since provisions were left in place to ensure that each state could create more districts and appoint more Representatives as their populations grew, and since how Electors were to be chosen would be left up to each state, they figured everybody would be happy with that.

The original rules were changed and bounced around over time. Different states have different methods for assigning Electors. The system we have today wasn't written into Federal law until 1845. But that isn't what you want to know. What you want to know is, since the Electors still, for the most part, have to vote what the popular vote in their district tells them to vote, how can a candidate win the popular vote but lose the Elector Vote?

Take an experiment: you will need 25 pennies, 20 nickels, and 5 cups. Let the pennies be Gore voters, the nickels be Bush voters, and the cups are the 5 districts in your state. Some states have 5 districts, some have 3, California has 55. So pretend your state has 5 districts for a minute.

In 3 of the cups, put into each one 6 nickels and 3 pennies. In the other 2 cups, put into each one 1 nickel and 8 pennies. Now each cup has 9 coins, so the districts are divided evenly. 5 times 9 is 45, and 25 pennies plus 20 nickels is 45.

Yet three of the cups have more nickels than pennies, while only two of the cups have more pennies than nickels. The nickels won, even though they were outnumbered by 25%!

The same concept works with districts, which are determined by where you live when you register to vote. If 501 people in your district vote red and 499 vote blue, your district comes out red. If 999 people in your district vote red and only 1 votes blue, your district still comes out the exact same shade of red! So past a certain point, the votes really don't count if a majority has already been reached.

Even if you understand it, doesn't it still drive just you crazy?

The Wacky World of Independent Candidates of 2008

Every four years, it seems, the race for the Presidency spawns a kind of party atmosphere for a while where basically, everybody and his sister says that they're running for President. But besides the more popular third parties, such as Green and Libertarian, there's the great, vast array of the Independents. There is no "Independent party", exactly; you just announce your candidacy and do your best to run. And hope nobody runs an article like this one making fun of you.

Blake Ashby - website: http://www.ashby2008.com/

Slogan: "At least he tells the truth!" Points are due for sounding like a regular, ordinary citizen who's just fed up with the lousy system. However, the impression he leaves the public with is a "glasses-wearing geek" who depends on YouTube video clips too much and sounds too angry in text. He does, however, have his act mostly together, and is a pretty square "protest candidate". He may not win your vote, but he does have some intelligent views.

John Taylor Bowles - website: http://www.bowlesforpresident.com/

Scary white-supremacist rantings framed in 1995 web-design standards complete with Comic-Sans fonts and cheap gif animations. Lots of swastikas if you scroll down. There now, hasn't he won your heart already? At least he's not shooting up high schools.

Don Cordell - website: http://www.doncordellforpresident.com/

Cranky old man who's fed up with us all. Of course, a lot of us have a beef with the country, so we can sympathize. Even though he uses about 50 font styles and sizes mixed together to deliver his list of gripes with life in the United States in a single long, long, long page, we can relate. He must feel better having gotten all that off his chest.

Jack Grimes - website: http://joanne21921.tripod.com/

OK, we're pretty sure this guy's just putting us on. Something about the over-sized, cartoonish Trojan helmet he's wearing in the picture, plus the pentagram symbol, kinds tips us off. So, welcome to the home site of the "United Fascist Union", and read all about their, uh, views. If this is an intentional parody of a nutball Independent candidate, it's a pretty fair job. If it isn't, I don't want to know.

Thomas J. Kozee Jr. - website: http://tkozeejr.googlepages.com/home

Not going to be called an "overachiever" any time soon. You go to this page, and immediately see the first thing wrong: the picture. We just can't trouble ourselves to get all dressed up for a campaign photo; jeans and a loud polo shirt will be just fine. Then I'll lean against this stack of filing cabinets and try to act like I know what's in them. Now write about ten paragraphs of text below it and conclude the call to action with a P.O. Box. There, we're done. That'll bring the voters running!

Brad Lord-Leutwyler - website: http://www.voteforbrad.com/

He starts out fairly all right. Perhaps fresh out of college. Then you keep reading and it gets angrier, and angrier, and angrier... then he goes on about MySpace deleting his account, and he's angry about that, too. Then there's the YouTube videos, and the blogging in capital letters, then some more anger... I hope he gets a date or two out of it.

Michael Stephen Levinson - website: http://www.michaelslevinson.com/

Very obvious humor, as the whole site is just pictures of an old woman campaigning for her sonny boy, with a lot of pictures of killer whales and dolphins for some reason. Rave reviews for humor! Very well-done parody.

Joe Schriner - website: http://www.voteforjoe.com/

"Average Joe" is a working-class man. He's been all across the land. He's so sincere, he's you... and you... and you... And there is is, pictured next to his maintenance van. Of course, he isn't going to a lot of trouble here. He's going to make it, based on his heartland family values alone! Go for it, Joe!

The Role of Religion in Presidential Politics

This year's Presidential election presents a wide spectrum of religious faith amongst the candidates. This year more than ever, it begs the question: What role, if any, should religion play in the policies of the Federal government?

The American people seem to lean towards the side of preferring religious candidates. After all, there's no point in trying to pretend that ours is a secular government; our pledge says "under God", our money says "In God we trust", and our Presidents frequently make references to prayer. While we seem to be nervous about sliding into a theocracy, and prefer our leaders not to have too strong an agenda towards a particular denomination, we still seem to want some general amount of religious belief in our Chief Commander.

By the numbers, Episcopalian Presidents have been the most popular. We've had eleven of them: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, William Henry Harrison, John Tyler, Zachary Taylor, Franklin Pierce, Chester A. Arthur, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Gerald Ford, and George H. W. Bush. After this, in order of popularity, we've had ten Presbyterians, five Methodists, four Baptists, four Unitarians, and a dwindling minority of Disciples of Christ, Dutch Reformed, Quaker, and Congregationalist. Interestingly, we have only had one Catholic (John F. Kennedy) even though Catholics are 25% of the population, and one Jehovah's Witnesses (Dwight D. Eisenhower).

Mitt Romney may not like the looks of this: we've never had a Mormon President. But we've never had an Atheist, either, nor a host of various other religions. What would a Buddhist or Muslim President do, for instance?

When the Associated Press polled the 2008 Presidential candidates for religious affiliation, the answers were more representative of U. S. society today: Seven Roman Catholics, three Methodists, three Baptists, one Episcopalian, one Presbyterian, one Mormon, and one - perhaps caught on the spot - describes himself simply as Christian. It is almost certain that, given the stigma against Atheism in our society, a Presidential candidate would rather falsely claim a religion than admit to not having one.

There is also the uncomfortable fact that there are de facto religions amongst our citizens which we do not publicly acknowledge. Your word for the day is "Statolatry", a word literally meaning "to idolize the state and worship it". Once you absorb this word's meaning and spirit (coined by Giovanni Gentile in his "Doctrine of Fascism"), you'll never look at a "Never forget 9/11" bumper sticker, a huge statue of a red-white-and-blue eagle, or a crowd signing our National anthem with tears in their eyes quite the same way again. Yes, we all love our country, but how many of us worship it? Polls conducted from time to time indicate that a scary number of Americans believe that Jesus was from here, and that the United States is the chosen land or Zion.

Paranormal beliefs also cross the brow of the Presidential mind from time to time. We have all heard about how Ronald Reagan consulted an astrologer on occasion, but so did Calvin Coolidge, Theodore Roosevelt, and Franklin D. Roosevelt. We have also all heard how Jimmy Carter said that he believed that he saw a UFO, but it's also come out that Dennis Kucinich has seen one as well, while staying at friend Shirley McClaine's house.

Religious views are inextricably tied to political hot buttons such as gay marriage and abortion. Without a holy book telling you that homosexuality is wrong, for instance, there is no practical reason for prohibiting gay marriage. And ask any party member why they believe in what they believe, and some reference to a deity will come up at least half the time.

The 2008 candidates have taken various stances in saying whether they will allow their religion to influence their politics. Romney has asserted that he will allow no shade of his religion to color his views on how to run the country, whereas Mike Huckabee has taken the opposite stance, declaring that it is impossible to tend to one without the other.

What can this tell us about the next selection? It looks like Americans prefer some religious frosting on their political cake, but not too much and not too strange a flavor, thank you.

The Most Colorful Presidential Nicknames

Well, that's one of the benefit of a Democracy, is you can make fun of or chum around with the Commander in Chief, and not get beheaded for it. Nothing expresses the colorful character of United States culture like the nicknames we give our Presidents. Here are some of the best, with the stories behind them.

Shrub (George Walker Bush) - A name bestowed in the writings of the late Molly Ivins, the American columnist and author. Seen by many as the Dorothy Parker of modern politics, it took a sharp wit like Molly's to draw the connection between the surname "Bush" and a reference to the Junior President being hardly capable of filling the shadow of Bush Senior.

Slick Willie (William Jefferson Clinton) - Bestowed by an editorial article in the "Arkansas Democrat Gazette", this nickname does the skillful job of referring to the "Teflon" nature of Clinton where nothing ever seemed to stick to him, his charismatic skills, a reference to his way with the ladies, and a kind of 1940's-era risibility, all without condemning him too hard.

The Gipper (Ronald Wilson Reagan) - Named after an actual role he played in the movie "Knute Rockne, All American". The movie was about football and Ronald Reagan played George Gipp. The lead character actually had the line: "The last thing George said to me, 'Rock,' he said, 'sometime when the team is up against it and the breaks are beating the boys, tell them to go out there with all they've got and win just one for the Gipper." Reagan actually cheerfully adopted this nickname himself.

The Accidental President (Gerald Ford) - Ford had a reputation for being physically clumsy and his many slips and falls were caught on camera. Most famously was when he tripped coming out of his jet, Air Force One, and tumbled down about 12 feet of steps. Combined with this, he had never run for President or Vice President, since Nixon appointed him from Congress directly to the Vice Presidency to replace Spiro Agnew. Nixon then was ironically impeached himself, leaving the tiller of the nation in Ford's shaky hands.

Tricky Dick (Richard Milhous Nixon) - No list of colorful Presidential nicknames would be complete without it. First coined by Democratic opponent Helen Gahagan Douglas, during the 1950 race for the California U.S. Senate. The name was applied for Nixon's already questionable tactics when competing for a Senate seat, and even then compared to his later record the public had seen nothing yet.

Give 'Em Hell Harry (Harry S. Truman) - This was shouted out from a crowd listening to one of his famously fiery speeches, and the name stuck throughout his Presidency as he earned the reputation of a vigilant watchdog of the nation's well-being.

The Sphinx of the Potomac (Calvin Coolidge) - The president was known for being the most taciturn official ever, and legends abound of how difficult it was to get him to talk. This made him enigmatic; nobody knew what he was thinking, and so he was silent and mysterious like an Egyptian sphinx.

The Professor (Woodrow Wilson) - Surprisingly enough, an academic with his own thoughts and no need for speech-writers is the exception in the Presidency rather than the norm. But Wilson was one of these, and was one of the few to be hailed as an intellectual. Compare this with later Presidencies where jokes at the expense of the President's I.Q. are the norm.

The Lion (Theodore Roosevelt) - It is difficult to pick from the many colorful nicknames given to Roosevelt the first, however, this one sums up his military record before his time in office, and his grit and determination in rooting out corruption on his way to the top. He ruled with a very firm hand, and this nickname speaks of that character in an almost Biblical state of reverence.

His Obstinacy (Grover Cleveland) - A President famous for his use of the veto power; he had a rubber stamp and he wasn't the least bit afraid to use it. Cleveland himself later bragged that his greatest accomplishment as President was blocking the bad ideas of others.

The Internet Influence on Elections

United States Presidential candidates for 2008 have a growing factor to address: the increased usage of the Internet. Fully half the people on Earth are going online now, and the United States is one of the most wired countries in the world.

First there are the blogs. Big-ticket bloggers like Wonkette, DailyKos, and Little Green Footballs have replaced newspapers and magazines as the sounding board for public opinion. Most web users are more likely to get their news from the web than from the TV. Television news is slow and repetitive; the few companies controlling the network station lead to a homogenized environment where everybody pretty much says the same thing.

But a soldier can blog directly from a war zone and report some development the minute it happens, without any government control to clean it up. Readers back home see it minutes later, and immediately discuss it on their blogs and message boards. Social news reports the story to the masses. People ask each other what the candidates are going to do about the war, and then visitors search the web for the record of this candidate or that and post a link to the reference. Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia that's free to edit, updates the relevant articles with the new event.

All of this has happened in an hour, while the television camera crew is still on their way to the scene. By the time it shows up on television, it is literally cold coffee already.

People are also campaigning and debating online. the Presidential candidates may have time for nothing but a few minutes of raising their hands in response to questions, like a game of Simon says. But ten thousand voters are having a hundred times the debate right on their websites and chat rooms. There, points are raised, argued, sustained or debunked, all without a hierarchical media professional moderating the discussion.

The candidates are showing a greater awareness of the web audience this election than ever before. They all have websites. Most of them have blogs. Certainly all of them have message boards, where supporters gather to discuss campaign strategy, cheer on their candidate, and keep their candidate informed of developments along the campaign trail. Candidates are paying more attention this year to online polls and surveys, and they speak directly to the Internet audience.

YouTube is figuring prominently. This is a site where anyone can upload video clips for everyone on the web to see. Practically any Senator who says anything near someone with a camera phone ends up on YouTube within minutes. Donations are also coming in through Internet payment services, such as PayPal. People are even registering to vote online.

The opening up of the information age has brought the side effect that campaigns can also be broken in minutes. It is as simple as this: you cannot get away with a single lie when you're on the Internet and are already a public figure. The truth always outs, because 500 armchair detectives are scrutinizing your every word. Voting records are found and posted, video clips of what really happened are there to be viewed. The Internet may yet become the new "paparazzi", because it is everywhere, and instant.

One of the dangerous problems that has already come up is that the Internet can be used for abuse as easily as it can be used for the truth. Spammers, social news riggers, and web-based attacks have already been deployed, and the one thing the Internet doesn't reveal is who's behind it all, because the Internet brings with it anonymity. Maybe that gaffe was the action of your candidate's campaign crew, or maybe it was somebody from the other crew trying to make your candidate look bad. It is easier now to blow the whistle anonymously than it ever was before, but now when you see it, you have to ask yourself if it's really true, and what are the real motives behind it.

For good or bad, the Internet has let the genie of the crowd-sourced media out of the bottle, and it's not going back.

The 2008 Election and the Iraq War Ripple

Time heals all wounds. That's an old proverb.

But how much time? It probably depends on the wound. For now, no one can say that the United States is over the 9/11 attack. The attack, the Afghanistan war, and the Iraq war, have left a scar that will grow up and grow older with us, year after year, President after President.

It's hard to find an American anymore who didn't lose somebody close to them in the past seven years. Either you knew a firefighter or a work acquaintance who died in the World Trade Center, or you know a soldier who went overseas to a war they're never coming back from. Some of us have lost children, or siblings, parents, or spouses. And now we have to figure out, without any help at all, whether how we vote in the 2008 election will mean we lose more people. And if so, how to vote right.

The United States is a land of fractured lines and jittery nerves. There are staunch war supporters. Attack forever! That is the way to stay safe. There are the war protesters. Never attack again! That will give no one a reason to attack us. There is the 9/11 Truth Movement. They think we were all fooled. They may even be right, but the mob frenzy makes it hard to tell. No two people seem to agree anymore on what happened, what the right thing to do is, or even whether it will happen again.

This makes the 2008 election one of the most decisive ever. The voters who come to the polls today won't be the same ones who lightheartedly picked a candidate and shrugged prior to 2001. They come with a purpose. They will clutch their ballots in their hands, not even very sure if they can trust the government with their vote any more, and they will not reveal their decision until the last minute. Possibly because they don't know that decision themselves until the last minute.

Lack of trust in government is everywhere. It used to be that the public questioned mainly the fiscal policy; as long as they had jobs and houses and cars, they were happy. But the past seven years have shown us a side of our government that some of us are shocked about. There is the question of torture; unspeakable a decade ago, but now it's just one more check-box on the polls. Are you pro-torture or anti-torture? Should we build a wall around the United States? Should we allow spies in our homes? Should we abandon everything but the military, and become a nation at permanent war forever? Does anybody have rights? Any rights at all?

And is there really that much difference between the parties anymore? Many say that there isn't; we have two right wings and no left. The Libertarian party is where the lefties are, now, and they're down for the count. The Democrat and Republican side are the same side, with some check-boxes different. Unless you're talking gay marriage; then nobody, not even the farthest-left Libertarian, will disagree. We are decisive on eliminating gayness from our society, and at least that will rid us of gay terrorists.

The United States, as a nation, will have its collective temperature taken this November, 2008. It is impossible to tell what will happen. But one thing is certain; by December, 2008, we will, at last, know what we were thinking. We hope that we can look back on what we were thinking, and be proud of ourselves.

Should We Do Away With the Presidential Election Campaign Fund?

Traditionally, tax payers every year have been confronted by that little box on the tax form, giving them the option to donate part of their refund to the Presidential Election Campaign Fund. But it could soon turn out that that practice will go the way of the dodo.

Estimates have it that the race for the 2008 White House could carry a $500 million price tag, which is far more than the Presidential Election Campaign Fund can hold. Because of this, Democratic and Republican nominees could decline to use the fund in both the primary and the general elections. Pundits have identified the Presidential Election Campaign Fund as being broken, having not kept up with inflation, and that it also fails to take into account the greater number of media streams available to campaign through. When they say that, they mean "the Internet", which is having the greatest effect on the voter's decision process this year more then any other previous year.

George W. Bush turned the money down in both his 2000 and 2004 GOP primaries. Both Howard Dean and John Kerry followed suit in 2004.

Also called the "checkoff fund" because it appears as a check box on the tax forms, the program, which is administered by the Federal Elections Commission, was created in response to the Watergate scandal in order to reign in the campaign financing activity of Presidential candidates. It reduces a candidate's dependence on large contributions from such donating parties as special-interest groups. To accept the fund requires that a candidate agree to an overall spending limit and to abide by spending limits in each state. They must also be subject to a campaign audit.

The fund is only expected to have about $200 million in it by the beginning of 2008. It is divided equally between all candidates, which means that even some of the lowest-funded candidates in the race will be constrained to a paltry sum compared to what they can easily collect on their own. The trend lately has been to start fund-raising earlier every year; the candidates have already gotten a sizable bankroll going by 2007. In addition, many of the candidates already hold public office, and are free to use their left-over money from their previous candidacy for their current election run.

In the race, Senator and candidate John McCain, Senator Russ Feingold, and Representatives Christopher Shays and Martin Meehan have all made strong cases for campaign finance reform. McCain has spear-headed the matter on the front of the checkoff fund, having turned down the money for his 2008 bid, but also having taken action in favor of overhauling it.

If the overhaul were to go through, it would triple the amount available to candidates during state primaries. It would also eliminate the state spending limits, which is a chief pinch point. It would also offer more money to candidates when other candidates had already turned it down, which seems to be a great playing-field leveler.

It should be pointed out that McCain is being a good sport about this, since he is currently the third or fourth highest earner of campaign funds. The fact that he would allow money which he had turned down to go to his potential competitor, sans spending limit, shows the remarkable confidence befitting a military hero.

Presidential Campaigning in the Media

Getting that message out to the voters - it's going to begin soon! The wonderful advertising round of the Presidential 2008 election season is about to get underway. Already, the major candidates have each blessed us with a "Holiday wishes" ad spot. It was brief, sweet, and to the point, and not shown too often, so that viewers don't spend the Holidays resenting the candidates, but with a definite air of "we'll be right back to pound you with the heavy advertising on January 2nd!" So, here's what kinds of hustling they're run on you, and its relative effectiveness.

Direct mail flyers - not nearly as successful as they used to be - even if you like the candidate, it's not like you're going to frame their pamphlet or anything. You'll probably just give it to the kids to color or fold it into an origami swan and send it away, like you do with all of your junk mail.

TV commercials - yes, they're on the list. What could I tell you about TV commercials that you didn't already know?

Radio ads - radio works better for local elections than it does for national ones. Don't count on hearing too many candidate ads on the radio, because talk radio is so segregated by party that anybody listening is already voting for that candidate's party anyway, and music radio is almost dead because Internet has replaced radio for music, whether legally by iPods or illegally by piracy. Most of the people listening to radio music are probably people too young or too indifferent to vote.

Newspaper and magazines - Print ads are a different story. They're always worth the money. And with the wide spread of the most diverse cast of candidates in history, they'll be looking for targeted voters in narrow demographics, which is just what magazines do best. No matter what your reading material of choice is, there's a candidate just for you this year, and they'll be smiling at you from the sidebar of your subscribed reads.

Web page ads - Now you're talking! Huge, animated ad banners are already popping up all over the Internet like zits at a prom, and they're made of Flash all the way. So they'll bounce, wiggle, blink, and frolic, and probably even talk. This is a good time to get adblock for you Firefox browser, which is becoming even more valuable than the mute button on your TV remote. This is the pick for the number one expenditure of ad dollars from the candidates.

Internet YouTube ads - Oh, another big one. They've already been going for quite a while now. This is one time you won't see claims of copyright infringement if you copy a video from YouTube to your blog - when it's a candidate plug! Candidates will be knocking themselves out to try to make hip, cool spots to post on video feed sights.

Internet blogs - Another big one with a bullet. Every candidate even remotely serious has a web site up, and this being the 21st century, a website is nothing without a blog. Blogs are useful for getting a message out to your supporters, getting feedback, and all the while keeping that close, cozy connection with the readers that only a blog can give. They'll either be maintained by campaign managers, or - in the case of underdog candidates, by the candidates themselves. Remember how it was said in 2004 that the Presidential race was won and lost in the blogs - count that double for this year.

Podcasting - This one's iffy. Podcasting is just like running a little TV or radio show out of your garage, so it's great for campaigning, but the problem is that podcasting just hasn't gained the tech-savvy audience that knows where to go or what to do with it yet. Better to leave it up to the occasional fan, who will be too happy to record the TV interview and cut a podcast for his blog readers to download.

"Viral" Internet marketing - Deadly poison. One candidate was stupid enough to try it, and he's in trouble for it, so the rest have learned fast from that mistake. The candidate shall not be named here, but he's too obscure for you to have known anyway - unless you visited a major social news site in the past six months and notices the deluge of link spam and the paid shills who were voting it all up and gushing how much they loved the candidate. When you fake a grassroots campaign on the Internet, it's called "astroturfing" - laying down fake grass. Make no mistake, this candidate's campaign is over, and he's under investigation by the FCC for felony Internet fraud right now, so he may even lose the office he currently holds. Not to mention that his own ploy backfired when he picked up some real grass-roots support with some money in it - from a racist hate-site. Yes, it may seem cheap to hire third-world spammers to viral-market for you, but it doesn't pay in the end.

Political Terms to Know for the 2008 Election L-Z

Bone up on your political jargon with this handy list of political phrases and expressions. While there are many of these, this list may be especially relevant to Presidential Election 2008, so keep an eye out for spotting these concepts as the race unfolds in all its drama!

Lame duck - This is an elected official who is soon losing political power and is no longer feeling very responsible for his or her actions. Typical lame duck maneuvers are to pull off a string of moves just before leaving, which they never would have done if they had to worry about getting elected again. What will George Bush pull out of his sleeve next December?

Neo-Luddism - This is a modern movement of opposition to specific or general technological development. Usage: "You don't like stem cell research, the creation of a national broadband network, or computer classes in every school? What a Neo-Luddite!"

Pressure politics - The use of intimidation, threats, and mass media to persuade politicians that the public demands a particular action. It may be the will of the people, or it may be five kids in their basement spamming emails to make it look like 500,000 angry voters are demanding something. Look for pressure politics whenever any special interest makes a lot of noise about how a candidate's stance on an issue just lost their vote.

Reality-based - What non-religious voters call religious voters, as opposed to "religion-based". Usage: "No intelligent-design pseudo-science in my kid's classroom, thank you very much; I'd like her education to be reality-based."

Rubber stamp - The notional tool used by party members to approve anything their party candidate does. The decision to label something right or wrong, depending on which party it came from. Whenever intense polarization exists in a two-party system, look for rubber stamps everywhere.

Social chauvinism - Fanatical patriotism during a time of war. Us or them! Look for social chauvinism to come up in any discussion of war policy concerning how inferior the other country is to the United States.

Stalking horse - Aaaah, the subtle approach! A stalking horse is a candidate entered into a race specifically to keep another candidate from drawing too many votes, by splitting the targeted party. Are there any candidates in this race who have been entered to steal popularity from another candidate in the opposing party, while being too unpopular to draw any votes in their own party and hence not damage the front-runner's campaign? Are there any of them aimed at a specific demographic, like Internet users, for instance? Spotting the stalking horse is a fun, but challenging game. Look for single-digit poll numbers, insane amounts of money contributed, and irrational social media hype and silly publicity stunts that together defies all explanation.

Third rail - From the subway train metaphor, the third rail is the untouchable issue that if any politician touches it, their campaign will be damaged. Gay marriage and marijuana legalization are two of the third rails this election.

Useful idiot - This term came into use to describe what the Soviets would have thought of an American Soviet-sympathizer. However, look for it to be bandied about to describe a Liberal-sympathizer in the Republican's camp, or vice-versa.

Wealth primary - The scramble for campaign contributions by all of the candidates, which, thanks to the inflated cost of campaigning, begins many months before the party primaries select their final nominations. It isn't much good to win a party primary, if you're too broke to campaign after you've been nominated.

Political Terms to Know for the 2008 Election A-K

Bone up on your political jargon with this handy list of political phrases and expressions. While there are many of these, this list may be especially relevant to Presidential Election 2008, so keep an eye out for spotting these concepts as the race unfolds in all its drama!

Absurdistan - A satiric term for any country where absurdity is the norm. A funny farm on a national scale. What America may feel like when this election is over.

Armchair revolutionary - Related to "armchair quarterback" and "weekend warrior". Now that the Internet has given us an easy way to do a lot of talking online without much action, it's a term more relevant than ever!

Blue rinse brigade - It originated in the United Kingdom to describe the elderly middle-class ladies usually of a conservative socio-political persuasion. But it's ready for adoption in America, where seniors are notoriously socially conservative, fiscally liberal, and retired so they have plenty of time to vote and campaign.

Bolters - Party members who leave the party for another one as soon as their favorite candidate doesn't win the nomination. Possible usage: "Those Republicans stayed on until they saw John McCain didn't get the Republican nomination, then they left for the Democrat party to go vote for Joe Biden instead. Those bolters!"

Bush Derangement Syndrome - The tendency to blame George W. Bush for every single thing that goes wrong; right-wing pundits used it to describe "loony left" members who were apparently so hysterical they thought Bush caused hurricane Katrina. Now that Bush is leaving office with no incumbent to replace him, even the right-wing may catch a touch of Bush Derangement Syndrome.

CAVE People - C.A.V.E. stands for "Citizens Against Virtually Everything". Specifically people who love anything as long as it's established already, but hate change of any kind. As social questions like gay and women's rights and whether to legalize marijuana or stop the Iraq war come into play, count on a comment or two from the CAVE People.

Christmas tree bill - A bill that passes through the House and Senate with a lot more unrelated amendments attached than it started with. Typically a small, minor bill, which then gets a new condition such as a favorable vendor or a tax loophole tossed in, and one Congressman after another does this until the bill resembles a tree decorated with ornaments hanging off it. Also named because it's usually the last bill passed in a hurry before Congress goes home for the Christmas holidays.

Crony capitalism - Just thought I'd remind you that this term exists. You aren't supposed to think of any companies that happen to be named "Halliburton", who are making a huge profit from the Iraq war while an ex-executive of their company who's still getting money from them happens to be the out-going Vice-President under the President who declared the Iraq war.

Groupuscule - This is a word borrowed from the french to describe the tendency for the far extremes of a political party to break off into tiny little sub-parties over some minor quarrel or extreme view. Usage: "The Popular People's Front is just a groupuscule from the People's Front of Judea. Splitter!"

Kleptocracy - A government that increases the personal wealth and political power of the ruling class at the expense of the population. Since you hear "the rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer" all of the time, now you can respond with, "What, you thinks we're in a kleptocracy?"

Past Presidential Election Losers and Where They Are Now

It's hard to believe how much excitement is built up for each candidate, only to see the losers shuffle off again into obscurity. Here, we'll jolt your memory with a list of also-rans from elections past, and try to ferret out what became of them. We won't bother with the very obvious ones are - you don't need us to tell you what Al Gore is doing, do you? - but the ones who are question marks may prove interesting.

John Kerry, Democrat, 2004 - After conceding the election to George W. Bush before the last votes were even counted, Kerry concluded the most lackluster campaign in recent memory by returning to his Senate duties, with one last assurance to his supporters that he'd fight the good fight. Well, he's still the Junior Senator from Massachusetts, under senior Senator Ted Kennedy. He's basically not very busy. He's attended a rally here and there and pushed out the occasional bill, and chairs some Senate committees, but generally avoids the spotlight like a vampire.

Ross Perot, Reform party, 1996 - If there was ever a wild card candidate, this one was it. Having more Libertarian views than anything else, and making a huge amount of noise in the news media, Perot stormed the 1996 Presidential election with some much-needed comic relief in what would have been a dry-as-sand race without him. He has practically gone into hiding since then. He's abandoned the Reform party, which he once manipulated, and is presumably doing something in the business sector. Whenever a newspaper reporter spots him in public and interviews him, he usually remains on the subject of his business career and refuses to comment on anything else. His sole emergence from political exile was to support technology advancement in education in Texas in 2005, which isn't surprising since he made his fortune with technology companies in Texas.

Michael Dukakis, Democrat, 1988 - Boy, did he ever lose. George Bush, Sr., won this election hands down, and Dukakis couldn't seem to get a break any which-way. After losing the Presidency to Bush by a 4-to-1 margin in electoral votes, he served out his last two years as Governor of Massachusetts under the public and media spotlight which scrutinized and criticized his every move. He stepped down from politics altogether in 1990 and joined the board of - of all things - Amtrack, right at a time when trains were losing popularity and a recession was looming. He later became a professor of political science at Northeastern University in Massachusetts, and continues to this day with a mostly scholarly career with the occasional dabble in grassroots campaigning.

Walter Mondale, Democrat, 1984 - Against the unshakable might that was the incumbent Reagan administration, there was no possibility of even standing a chance. But somebody had to run, just to say that we had an election anyway. After 1984 and his resultant trampling, Mondale brushed the elephant footprints off his suit and returned to the private sector practicing law. In 1993 he was appointed to U.S. Ambassador to Japan under the Clinton administration. In 2002 he was put on the ballot to replace another Senate candidate who had died in a plane crash, and he gave the race his best, roaring try and finished very close, but lost. He stated "At the end of what will be my last campaign, I want to say to Minnesota, you always treated me well, you always listened to me." Retired, he lives today near the Lake of the Isles in Minneapolis, where he is frequently seen walking his dogs and heard to quote lines from the comic skits of Monty Python, of which he is a fan.

Eugene McCarthy, Independent, 1976 - Wedged into the race between Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, the one time that an Independent candidate would have stood a chance, McCarthy managed to get less than one-percent of the popular vote. This U.S. Senator from Minnesota - not at all to be confused with Joseph McCarthy, the Senator from Wisconsin for whom McCarthyism is named - would make a total of five runs for Presidency throughout the years. He also continued to write his books, of which he had produced 17, before passing away on December 10, 2005, at the age of 89.

Key Battleground States in the 2008 Presidential Election

The 2008 election is on target to be the most harrowing election in recent memory. This will be the first Presidential election since 1928 that has no incumbents in the primary, with the 1952 election counting as a certain exception since Truman's name was indeed on the ballot, but he did not campaign. Harry had run out of "hell" to give anybody.

Additionally, there is massive and passionate anger in the voting ranks. We have the unpopular Iraq war in our laps, a budget surplus has been turned into the largest deficit in history, with what all figures point to as the least popular President stepping down from an eight-year reign - with impeachment cries dogging his heels, no less. The Republicans have lost more friends at this point than they ever have before. At the same time, we have massive dissatisfaction with the Democrat side, where we have had defeats at the hands of lame duck Democrat Presidential candidates and voted in a score of Democrats into the Senate and Congress who have since sat on their hands and done nothing.

So, the entire country is actually one big battleground. All assessments of the political map for 2008 have to take this into account. Being said, here are the states which are seen as the front lines of the Presidential race, and why:

Virginia: A decisive state on the Eastern side, it has recently gone from Republican to Democrat, but may be leaning back. The polls here have McCain ahead of Clinton by a wide margin of 51 to 42, but a tie between Clinton and Giuliani at 45% each.

Ohio: It is the "incumbent battleground", having decided the 2004 Presidential election.

Arkansas: This is where we get Bill and Hillary Clinton from, but also where we get Mike Huckabee. Arkansas is traditionally a Conservative state which votes Democrat most of the time. The votes this time will be split, with either Republican Huckabee, the most recent Governor, or Clinton, the former First Lady, emerging as victor. Polls have shown a slight leaning towards Clinton, but the Republican attention appears to be going towards Giuliani, not Huckabee.

Kentucky: This state is so divided that it can't help but be a battleground. The state went for Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996, and for Bush in 2000 and 2004. Polls have shown Clinton leading Giuliani by four percentage points, but leading McCain by just one percentage point.

Colorado: Here we have another Clinton / Giuliani split, but it's a hair-split. 44 to 40 on the polls. The other factors that make it a battleground are the bordering of the Conservative Great Plain states, which tend to push it to the Republican side, and the large number of Hispanics in the state, which tends to pull it to the West Coast side and Democrat.

New Hampshire: It became a "swing state" in the 1990's, after having been solidly Republican before.

Indiana: It was mostly Republican up until 2006, when the state swung heavily to the Democrat side in the Senate race. The aforementioned Senate Democrats have done a great job of being clay pigeons since getting into office, however, so the state could veer back to the other direction. Polls currently show the state voting Democrat over Republican 37 to 32, but the state has not voted for a Democrat President since 1964.

Missouri: This state is the traditional bellweather for the rest of the nation, which is to say that if Missouri thinks it, the rest of the country starts thinking that way, too. Its central location both geographically and politically helps to give the status of a canary in a coal mine. The polls here have been largely in favor of Clinton, and it should be noted that the state just elected its first female Senator, Claire McCaskill, in 2006. McCaskill is ahead in the state's approval ratings, with even a third of Republicans saying they approve of her job so far, so this could give them a favorable impression of female politicians in general.