<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Nathaniel Ward &#187; Election</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.nathanielward.net/tag/election/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.nathanielward.net</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Aug 2011 12:14:33 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>What I’m Reading  — January 14th</title>
		<link>http://www.nathanielward.net/2010/01/what-im-reading-january-14th/</link>
		<comments>http://www.nathanielward.net/2010/01/what-im-reading-january-14th/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Jan 2010 19:34:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Nathaniel Ward</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[What I’m Reading]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2010]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Campaign Finance Reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Delicious]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Facebook]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[First_Amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Free_Speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gmail]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[GOP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Midterm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rapleaf]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republicans]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[social_media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[twitter]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nathanielward.net/?p=580</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Some of the links I've collected from around the web from January 12th to January 14th.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-myth-of-campaign-finance-reform" title="Link to Bookmark">Campaign Finance Reform’s Unending Quest to Limit Our Rights.</a> Bradley Smith explains how campaign finance “reform” has continued to erode basic constitutional protections: “every time we close off one avenue of political participation, politically active Americans will turn to the next most effective legal means of carrying on their activity. That next most effective means will then become the loophole that must be closed.”</li>
<li><a href="http://blog.rapleaf.rsvp1.com/social-insight-into-aol-gmail-hotmail-and-yahoo-email-users-%E2%80%93-part-3-social-network-memberships/" title="Link to Bookmark">Gmail Users Are More Active on Social Media.</a> </li>
<li><a href="http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1952807,00.html" title="Link to Bookmark">The GOP Shouldn’t Count It’s Chickens Just Yet.</a> Ramesh Ponnuru: “Republicans shouldn’t get carried away. There are 10 months to go before the midterm elections, and the political climate can change a lot in that time.”</li>
</ul>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.nathanielward.net/2010/01/what-im-reading-january-14th/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>What I’m Reading  — June 20th</title>
		<link>http://www.nathanielward.net/2009/06/what-im-reading-june-20th/</link>
		<comments>http://www.nathanielward.net/2009/06/what-im-reading-june-20th/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Jun 2009 19:33:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Nathaniel Ward</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[What I’m Reading]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Delicious]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mahmoud Ahmadinejad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[medicaid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Poland]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Solidarity]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nathanielward.net/?p=463</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Some of the links I've collected from around the web from June 17th to June 20th.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2009/06/18/iran-is-not-poland-and-other-blindingly-obvious-truths/" title="Link to Bookmark">How Iran Is Not Poland.</a> The differences between 1981 Poland and 2009 Iran and what that means for American policy.</li>
<li><a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124528251402125409.html" title="Link to Bookmark">Daniel Henninger on the ‘Public Option.’</a> Can we really believe what proponents of a government insurance plan have to say?</li>
<li><a href="http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2009/06/16/think-again/" title="Link to Bookmark">Larison on the Iranian Election.</a> “How much of the Mousavi voters’ outrage is of the 1972 ‘no one I know voted for Nixon’ variety? What if Iran’s so-called ‘silent majority’ is not opposed to the regime as it currently exists as most observers seem to assume?”</li>
</ul>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.nathanielward.net/2009/06/what-im-reading-june-20th/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>What I’m Reading  — May 26th</title>
		<link>http://www.nathanielward.net/2009/05/what-im-reading-may-26th/</link>
		<comments>http://www.nathanielward.net/2009/05/what-im-reading-may-26th/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 May 2009 15:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Nathaniel Ward</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[What I’m Reading]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Brain]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[California]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chuck Devore]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competitiveness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Confirmation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conservatives]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Delicious]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[distraction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Facebook]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Greg Mankiw]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[neurology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Psychology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republicans]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Senate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sonia Sotomayor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nathanielward.net/2009/05/what-im-reading-may-25th-2/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Some of the links I've collected from around the web from May 25th to May 26th.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<ul>
<li><a href="http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OWI2ZjM2MmRiODlhMmY1NDgxYjBjZjNjOWRmMmE1NjQ=" title="Link to Bookmark">Who Is Sonia Sotomayor?</a> </li>
<li><a href="http://www.ocweekly.com/2009-05-21/news/chuck-devore" title="Link to Bookmark">Chuck DeVore’s Quixotic Attempt to Twitter and Parody-Video His Way Into the U.S. Senate</a> “‘They say the Internet is forever and things I write could be used against me in the future. If Alexander Hamilton and Lincoln lived today, would they be using their technology to get their message across? Yes,’ DeVore declares. ‘What are the Federalist Papers but the technological equivalent in the 1700s of the blogs?’”</li>
<li><a href="http://www.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&amp;title=In+Defense+of+Distraction&amp;expire=&amp;urlID=35262779&amp;fb=Y&amp;url=http://nymag.com/news/features/56793/&amp;partnerID=73272" title="Link to Bookmark">In Defense of Distraction.</a> Sam Anderson asks if it’s possible to retain our focus in a distraction-filled modern world–and does it matter? For what it’s worth, this took three sittings to get through.</li>
<li><a href="http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=56008632409&amp;ref=nf" title="Link to Bookmark">Not Helping.</a> This Facebook group makes out Republicans or conservatives as sore losers.</li>
<li><a href="http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/05/healthcare-competitiveness-fallacy.html" title="Link to Bookmark">The Healthcare-Competitiveness Fallacy</a> </li>
</ul>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.nathanielward.net/2009/05/what-im-reading-may-26th/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Do We Need More Populism in the Senate?</title>
		<link>http://www.nathanielward.net/2009/03/do-we-need-more-populism-in-the-senate/</link>
		<comments>http://www.nathanielward.net/2009/03/do-we-need-more-populism-in-the-senate/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Mar 2009 14:24:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Nathaniel Ward</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics and Economics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[feingold]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Senate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[States]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nathanielward.net/?p=284</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Requiring that all Senators be chosen in popular elections would further undermine the constitutional structure devised by the Founders.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Motivated by the appointment of four Senators in the wake of the 2008 election, progressives want to amend the Constitution to require that all Senators be chosen in popular elections. This idea, put forward by Sen. Russ Feingold, would further undermine the constitutional structure devised by the Founders.</p>
<p>While scoring political points against disgraced Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich and his appointment of Sen. Roland Burris may be tempting, conservatives should be wary of signing on to this amendment. Instead, they should make the case for preserving and strengthening Madison’s federal structure—perhaps with the ultimate goal of repealing the 17th Amendment altogether.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxvii.html">The 17th Amendment</a>, enacted in 1913, dealt the first blow against the Founders’ structure by maintaining that all Senators be chosen in direct popular elections instead of by the state legislators. But it also holds that in case of vacancy, “the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.” <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/us/politics/11senate.html">The New York Times carries water for Sen. Feingold’s unhelpful proposal</a> by suggesting that allowing state governments to appoint replacement Senators without voter approval amounts to a “loophole” in the amendment.</p>
<p>Feingold further argues that the appointment of any Senator denies citizens their fundamental rights. “I think of it as a right-to-vote issue,” he tells the New York Times. Of course, the right to vote is nowhere abridged in any appointment scheme, since voters choose the state lawmakers who make the appointment. Now it’s true that voters are only indirectly choosing an appointed Senator, but there’s no reason to believe direct elections necessarily make for superior government.</p>
<p>George Will explains <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/20/AR2009022003034.html">the strengths of the Founders’ design</a> and how the direct election of Senators harms it:</p>
<blockquote><p>The Senate, indirectly elected and with six-year terms, was to be more deliberative than responsive.</p>
<p>Furthermore, grounding the Senate in state legislatures served the structure of federalism. Giving the states an important role in determining the composition of the federal government gave the states power to resist what has happened since 1913 — the progressive (in two senses) reduction of the states to administrative extensions of the federal government…</p>
<p>The Framers gave the three political components of the federal government (the House, Senate and presidency) different electors (the people, the state legislatures and the electoral college as originally intended) to reinforce the principle of separation of powers, by which government is checked and balanced.</p></blockquote>
<p>In The Federalist, <a href="http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed62.asp">Publius makes a similar argument</a>. He maintains that the appointment of Senators by the states promotes federalism by strengthening the power of states against the federal government:  “giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government … must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems.”</p>
<p>Those who favor limited government ought to think twice about Feingold’s proposed amendment, which would further enervate the federal structure and strengthen the national government, thereby hurting the cause of limited government.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.nathanielward.net/2009/03/do-we-need-more-populism-in-the-senate/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk: basic (Feed is rejected)
Page Caching using disk: enhanced

Served from: www.nathanielward.net @ 2012-02-11 07:55:15 -->
