1. I think that the overwhelming majority vote to extend the taxt cut only shows how much it's really needed. It will help to support American families and small businesses as well as boost the American economy. However, several House Democrats are talking of a full return of the estate tax which would make it much harder to pass on small, family-owned busineses.

2. I think that passing a 2 billion dollar bill in such a short time with no time to examine it, is a little bit rediculous of our congress. At the very least, it should be well thought over before it is passed. In the meantime, the president needs to hurry up and put in some kind of stopage measure so the government isn't shut down.

3. I think both sides are at fault. The Republicans are obviously a big part of the delay to the vote on the bill, but i think that is what's needed. It would be irresponsible to pass a bill they didn't know enough about or didn't have enough time to look into which is what the Democrats are trying to do. However if the Republicans are wanting to delay it, they shouldn't be complaining about having to work on christmas.

4. Well, it is a very expensive plan and we really don't have money for it with the state of the economy. But the tax cuts really are needed. It don't think I know enough about it to know exactly how it would affect most people. However, for two congressmen to go against the beliefs of their party, it can't be too good.

First, someone drafts an idea they have for a law and puts it into legal form. It is then assigned a number and assigned to a commitee in either the House or the Senate. The commitee examines and revizes it and sends it to the floor. The bill is then debated and voted on. If it recieves a mojority vote, it is sent to the other body where it goes through the same process. If it recieves mojority vote here, it is then sent to the govenor. If there is less then a majority vote at anytime, the process stops or the bill is sent back to the commitee for more revisions. If the govenor vetoes, it can go back through both bodies. The bill will pass if both bodies have a 2/3s vote to pass the bill.

1. Explain the difference between hard and soft money:
Hard money is money raised usually for one candidate. Soft money is money given to party organizations for "party-building activities".

2. What is the electoral process and is this something that you agree or disagree with and why?
First a possible candidate has to be nominated, and then they can run for office.
I agree. There are alot of ways to be nominated to run for office so it gives alot of people who would like to run a chance.
3. What is the difference between a closed and open primary?
In a closed primary, only the members of that party can vote. In an open primary, any registered voter can vote.
4. Explain what absentee voting is and what the positives and negative may be with regards to it:
Absentee voting is a process by which someone can vote without actually going to polling places on election day.  It would allow someone to vote even if they had to work or were going to be out of town.
5. What changes do you see in the way we run elections ten years from now?
I don't think there will be alot of changes, but I could see us having candidates from more than two parties in presidential elections.

6. Explain your views on money and elections with regards the amount of money that is spent:
I realize that money is needed to campaign, but a rediculous amount of money is being spent on campaigns, and I think a good amount of it could be put to better use.

7. Go to cnn.com or foxnews.com and find an article dealing with the election process.  Post the article in your blog and provide your viewpoints pertaining to the article.

(CNN)- The judge presiding over Alaska's Senate race challenge is expected to issue a ruling Friday.

Arguments began Wednesday in the legal challenge filed by Joe Miller which asserts that Alaska law prohibits misspelled write-in ballots from being counted and bars the state from applying more lenient standards for write-in ballots than other ballots.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski ran for re-election as a write-in candidate, after losing the Republican primary to Miller.
Five weeks after election day, Miller trails Murkowski by over 10,000 votes.
But a federal court will not allow the election results to be certified until the state court rules.
Joe Miller's lawsuit against the Alaska Division of Elections is expected to be decided in two days.
The Murkowski campaign considers this a positive step toward resolving the case in time for Murkowski to be certified as the winner before the Senate convenes on January 5.
"Mr. Miller today continued his efforts to disenfranchise Alaska voters, and he is continuing these efforts without the possibility of winning the election," Murkowski's campaign manager Kevin Sweeney said, in a statement Wednesday.
"While we are fighting for the fundamental and constitutional principle that every Alaskan's vote should count, we cannot determine exactly what principle Mr. Miller is trying to defend by seeking to take those votes out."
Miller explained his motive, saying, "This is not about my winning or losing. This is about upholding the integrity of the electoral process, and ensuring that the public can be confident in the results."
In a statement, Miller cited concerns that include write-in ballots from precincts that appear to be in the same handwriting and people on the sex offender registry that have been recorded in election registers as having voted.
Calling these "circumstances (that) appear troubling enough to warrant further investigation," Miller said he expects a different result than Murkowski's camp.
"We are confident the court will enforce Alaska law as written, invalidate the illegal standards… and allow us to obtain further information regarding the other apparent improprieties with the election."
Miller's statement also indicated that the Superior Court will stay the effect of any order it enters on Friday to allow the losing side to appeal to the Alaska Supreme Court.

    I think Miller should let it go. He lost regardless of the spelling of names, and he's just creating problems.

1. In the late 1700's the only people who had the right to vote were white male property owners. In all reality that was about 1 in every 15 white men. Now over 2 million people over the age of 18 have the right to vote and that number is completely due to the extension of suffrage. We got rid of religious qualifications, stopped denying males the right to vote based on color, allowed women to vote, stopped racial discrimination, and made the legal voting age 18.

2. In all of forty-nine states in the US, voter registrations is required to vote. The only state that has an exception to this law is North Dakota. Voter reigstration is used to prevent fraudulent voting. Officials then have a list of people who are qualified to vote in the elections. It is also helpful in telling who is eligible in the close primaries.

3. This section had alot to do with civil rights. In 1870, the 15th amendment was adopted protecting the voting rights of all adult males regardless of their race. In 1913, the adoption of the 17th amendment allowed the people to decide the senaters instead of the State legislatures. The 19th ammendment gave women the right to vote in 1920 and in 1964 the 24th ammendment banned poll tax as a voting requirement. The 26th ammendment gave 18 year-olds the right to vote in 1971.

4. While voter turnout hasn't been declining since the late 1960's, it isn't very high. The percentage of voter turnout for the presidential election hasn't been above 60% since 1968. It's been close to roughly 50% every year since then. These percentages are even lower for Representative elections. They've been only about 45% turnout each year.

5. Voter apathy is people believing that they don't need to vote, their vote doesn't count or they don't make a difference. A large portion of the people that don't vote are under educated, but some of them aren't. There is no reason for people being under educated about politics. It could be enstilled more in the school system, and parents should talk to their kids about it at home. If poiticians addressed more of the concerns of the electorate, I think more people would be likely to vote.

6. You must be a U.S. citizen for atleast a couple months in most states. You also have to be a resident of the state you vote in. Also, according to the 26th Ammendment, adopted in 1971, you must be only 18 years of age to vote.

In early years when the two major political parties were Federalists (Republicans) and Anti-Federalists (Democrats) I probably would've had a hard time choosing. I can relate with the Democrats not wanting a stron central government after having almost no say under a ruthless king, but i don't believe in alot of the ideals they have like slavery.
During the Republican era, I would side with the Republicans not just because they were prominent in government but because of their ideals. They believed in "free labor, free land, free men" which meant that they were against slavery and believed in free artisanship. Also, they were against plantations where only the rich could buy land and had slaves work it for them.
Now I'm a registered Republican probably because my parents and granparents are, but its also because i bleive more often in their ideals.

Then give your view on the national results and the local results.  Both the candidates and the initiative measures.
"President Obama admitted Wednesday that his party got hit hard." and he has to work in a bipartisan fashion with the incoming Republicans. The Republicans responded by saying that the president shouldn't expect to have things done his way anymore. While Obama says he is ready to compromise, the Republicans don't seem so willing.

Republicans prevailed in South Dakota's general elections all across the board from SD Senator to SD Public Utilities Commisioner. But the closest race was between Kristi Noem and  Staphanie Herseth Sandlin. Kristi took House by only about 3.5% of the votes. The 3rd oponent in the race for House was Independant, Thomas Marking, who received only about 6% of SD's votes.

1.  What does Federalism mean by definition and what does Federalism mean to you?
-Federalism is a system of government in which a written constitution divides the powers of government on a territorial basis between a central, or national government and several regional governments, usually called states or provinces.
-The division of power between state and national government to give the states rights and keep from giving the national government too much power.

2.  List and describe the three powers of the National Government.
-Coin money: Only the national government can produce coins and bills.
-Declare war: Only the national government can declare war.
-Establish an army: Only the national government can establish an army in a time of war.
3.  Explain the division of powers and why it is important?
-The government is devided into three branches: legislative, executive and judicial. This is to prevent on branch from getting powerful. They balance eachother out.
4.  What is the Supremacy Clause and what is its function?
-It establishes highest to lowest level of law in our federal government. It says that when a state and national law conflict, the national law is the one to follow.
5.  Find a site on the Internet that deals with Federalism.  Take 10 minutes and review that site.  Provide the link and provide some of the useful information that you found to help you better understand what Federalism is and how it works.
-It gives reasons for Federalism, reasons for order and a history of Federalism in the United States.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/federalism/

What are your views on the latest political ads on TV?  What candidate(s) do you like or dislike and why?

What role do you feel that you will play in politics and government in the future?  What ways are you participating currently?

Lately the my views on the poltical ads, especially Kristi Noem's and Stephanie Herseth's, are not very good. They're ads rarely tell us what they can do for South Dakota in the House anymore. Both are just giving negative feed on why the other is unqualified and should not get the position.

I'm not exactly sure what role I will play in in politics and government in the future. I will definately be a voter, but I plan to major in Spanish so unless i interpret for someone in politics, or I work for one of the US Embassys in a Spanish speaking country, I probably won't be too involved.