David O’Brien, Editor

Only five presidential elections in American history have led to the president of the United States winning the electoral college and losing the popular vote. Each has led to major controversies. Andrew Jackson claimed that John Quincy Adams only won the presidency through a corrupt bargain with the Speaker of the House, Henry Clay, resulting in Congress refusing to follow his agenda. Rutherford B. Hayes is remembered by historians as one of the most corrupt and controversial presidents of all time because of his “compromise of 1877,” where Hayes promised to end reconstruction as long as Democrats stopped contesting the election and stopped attempting to have a recount. Grover Cleveland replaced Benjamin Harrison after his election, as majority of people saw Harrison’s victory as nothing more than a result of party machinery and the corruption of the Gilded Age. George W. Bush won the election of 2000 because of a controversial 5-4 Supreme Court decision to end the Florida recount. Of course, over the past four years we have all heard the many different arguments on whether or not Trump deserves to be in office since he lost the popular vote by the largest margin in U.S. history. Many Americans have become fed up with the electoral college. Numerous congressional representatives, senators and governors have publicly endorsed abolishing it, and replacing it with an electoral system where whoever wins the popular vote becomes the president. Here is the question — what are the positives and negatives of the electoral college, and should you be for or against it?

Supporters of the electoral college argue that the electoral college is necessary to maintain the balance of power between the states, as well as help the people who may be forgotten in a normal popularity vote to have proper representation. Without the electoral college, presidential candidates would be able to be elected by only campaigning in major urban centers like New York City and Los Angeles. This situation would result in people who many believe to be the backbone of America, such as farmers, rust belt factory workers and small town families, to be marginalized. Many argue that if candidates only need support from major urban centers, they may only support policies that benefit essential backers at the cost of harming those not needed for election. Many argue that without the electoral college, politicians will become populist demagogues who are willing to simply help the 51 percent and leave behind the 49 percent. Supporters also see the electoral college as an institution that provides much needed stability to the election process. Supporters of the electoral college believe abolishing it would result in more contentious outcomes, marginalization of valuable voting blocks and communities and overall harm Americans more than help them.

Opponents of the electoral college claim the reasoning behind its founding is no longer necessary. Originally it was created because the founders feared that the people would not know enough about their candidates to vote properly. The founders did not have complete faith in a true democracy, thus the college was necessary. Opponents of the college find this idea appalling, because they believe a true democracy is the only way a government should be run and democracy is what makes America great, not the founders’ system. Undemocratic principles of the college are plenty for many to support abolishing it. Opponents also believe that swing states like Pennsylvania, Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin and Florida have too much power under the current system. They believe that with the current system, not all votes matter. If California is always blue, there’s no reason for a Republican to vote there as their vote will not mean anything. This situation furthers their claim that the electoral college is undemocratic, as it leaves many people’s votes meaningless, thus it should be repealed. Finally, people believe that the electoral college violates the general will of the people. Opponents follow the political philosophy of popular sovereignty — if a candidate gets a 51 percent majority, they simply deserve to win, as that is the general will of the people. 

The issue is not fully black and white, however. Some believe that if numerous counties in a state vote blue and numerous counties vote red, the state should not fully endorse one candidate. Instead, the college’s votes should be split. Thus, the college should remove its policy of endorsing candidates entirely by state but should keep its district voting system. This system would allow the election to remain stable, non-urban citizens to still have valuable votes, and for people of all states to have votes that “matter.” Two states have decided to experiment with this plan. In 1972, Maine and In 1992, Nebraska both passed legislation for this plan and it seems to be quite well for the state. Perhaps this idea is the compromise that could be a good resolution between supporters and opponents.

With this current election, many are questioning the importance of the electoral college. Many believe that once all the ballots are counted, a candidate may be put in office without the majority of people supporting them, like last election. This outcome may lead to protests and arguments from both sides that refuse to acknowledge the other’s argument. 

obriend10@lasalle.edu

David O’Brien, Editor

Many people enjoy the thrill and fear from the imaginary monsters that populate Halloween season, however, it seems that there is one much scarier and more powerful in our very own homes. On Oct. 20, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed an antitrust lawsuit against Alphabet, Google’s parent company. The DOJ’s lawsuit’s primary claim is that Alphabet is using its role as the number one current browser to stifle competition. Google has been using its vast wealth to secure as many deals as possible to become the default browser on most systems. The most recent agreement Google has made is a $10 billion deal to become the default browser on Apple’s Safari browser. The DOJ is arguing that Google is using its powerful position to gain special treatment for its search engine on numerous devices, leading to a self-reinforcing cycle that helps maintain Google’s position as the dominant browser. The Department’s goal for the lawsuit is to force Google to become restructured and to be put under government scrutiny until its behavior stops. The suit has no concrete idea or method for this solution, however, the DOJ claims that currently nothing is off the table. The suit could also result in the numerous other services and industries Google is involved with to become separate companies, thus the browser and phone-lines may become two separate companies altogether. The largest effect of the lawsuit, win or lose, is the end of Washington DC’s adoration for big tech companies. Many antitrust officials, like Gene Kimmelman, a former senior antitrust official, see this as the beginning of the end for the deregulated tech sector.

If the dangers of monopoly were not enough to make the average person afraid of Google, its place as the search engine used by 80 percent of Americans has also led to biased search results concerning media conglomerates and major election issues. Studies show that Google provides stories and articles from liberal news outlets 62 percent of the time. In contrast, conservative outlets only show up among articles and stories 11 percent of the time. Google provides liberal news networks as the answer to search results and news stories about five times more than their conservative counterparts. This extreme contrast in results can only mean one thing — partisan bias on platforms that are supposed to facilitate bipartisan answers to policy-related questions and bipartisan answers for questions surrounding current events. This leaves the question — can freedom of speech and freedom of press survive when one company controls 80 percent of organic search results? The idea that the most popular search engine uses its power to push its own political agenda is scary enough, and coupled with a monopoly it proves to be a dangerous threat for not only our politics but also our economy. With Google’s lack of competition and its ability to buy its way into becoming the default search engine on many different devices, one must understand the dangerous implication of allowing a single company to control the perspective of the news and stories themselves for the people.

obriend10@lasalle.edu

David O’Brien, Editor

As the election approaches, the Department of Agriculture is projected to pay $46 billion this year in farm subsidies. The agriculture sector will receive the largest government contribution to farm income since 2005. Government support is projected to account for 40 percent of farm income this year. Without these subsidies US farm income would be poised to decline. Despite these large government payments, debt in the farm sector is projected to increase to four percent this year, to a record-breaking $434 billion. 

The combination of the trade wars under the Trump administration and the coronavirus pandemic have led to extreme difficulties among markets for farmers. The trade wars with China and many European nations have led to foreign tariffs on corn, soybeans, lobster and peanuts, drastically reducing sales. As if this was not enough, the coronavirus pandemic has interfered with global supply chains as well as destroyed the hotel and restaurant industries, reducing demand even further. This has led to the lowest cash receipts since 2010. Farmers have been forced to destroy millions of pounds of beans and cabbage and dump vast quantities of milk simply to maintain their way of life.

A bipartisan committee in Congress has agreed on a short-term funding bill for farmers amidst these trying times. The only issue they were forced to compromise on was whether or not to increase child nutritional assistance funding, which Republicans eventually agreed to. However, numerous critics have come out against the unequal method of disbursement. Many believe aid is being dispersed in a method to curry favor for the Trump administration in swing states directly before the election. $13 million have been given to Wisconsin farmers while many people in less valuable electoral states receive nothing. While the tobacco industry is legally prohibited from receiving federal funds, $100 million  has been given to them via separate accounts funded by the government. Many believe this is because North Carolina, the largest tobacco producer and exporter, is a battleground state. The Secretary of Agriculture, Sonny Perdue, has also used his position to support Trump in this election by promising more subsidies and food programs in a speech in North Carolina. Special Counsel is now forcing him to reimburse the government for the event as he apparently used government funding for this event, adding even more controversy to the Department of Agriculture’s use of funds.

These massive subsidies have not managed to quell issues that small-time farmers face. Most of these distributed funds have gone to massive plantations as well as foreign-owned farms rather than small family farms. Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have criticized these methods of disseminating funds. Studies show that even if subsidies are given out equally, farmers will only get about $10,000 each, money that will almost fully go to paying off service debt. Despite all of the criticism and controversies, 51 percent of rural adults approve of Trump, 10 percent more than his national approval rating.

obriend10@lasalle.edu

David O’Brien, Editor

A new war has sparked in Asia as Armenia and Azerbaijan fight for the Nagorno-Karabakh region. The Nagorno-Karabakh region is officially ruled and recognized as a part of Azerbaijan, however, the region claims to be an autonomous republic, known as the Republic of Antsaleh. The area’s population is primarily ethnic Armenians.

While the new conflict started on Sept. 27, the situation goes as far back as 1988. The region declared independence and won numerous revolutionary battles which culminated in a cease-fire in 1994. However, this was meant to only be a temporary truce while a comprehensive peace deal was established. The conflict resulted in 600,000 people left without homes and forced away from their country. Azerbaijan pledged that they would one day reconquer the territory. The conflict re-emerged when Azerbaijan claimed Armenia launched an unprovoked attack. Armenia denied these accusations and proceeded to blame Azerbaijan for their own unprovoked attack.

The territorial conflict has major international implications as each side is backed by major countries on the world stage. France and Russia have both backed Armenia and Turkey has backed Azerbaijan. While originally Turkey and Russia both worked to maintain peace in the region, as the two of them have attempted to establish dominance over the Middle East since the United States began to exit the area, the nations have become distant. Turkey attempts to cement their power globally, and the EU and Russia have become increasingly frustrated with Turkish military action in regions like Syria, Libya and now Nagorno-Karabakh. Armenia has claimed Turkish aircrafts have been deployed and have shot down numerous Armenian fighter jets. Armenia also claims numerous troops have been sent from Syria because of Turkish pressure and manipulation. While Turkey denies both of these claims, the French and Russians believe Turkey is intervening, as these strategies were previously used in the Turkish conflict with Libya. France has denounced Turkish actions and warned Turkey to stand down. France also claims they will not accept nor tolerate Azerbaijan victory or conquest of the region. Russian parliament is on the fence on what their next course of action should be. Russia wants to attempt to negotiate a peace deal, however, Parliament is beginning to believe their next course of action should be to send in troops to maintain order in the region and keep the peace. While Russia attempts to negotiate peace in the region, Azerbaijan has denied to make any peace talks. Over one hundred people have died in the conflict for the mountainous, 1,700-square-mile region as of the time of this publication.

obriend10@lasalle.edu

David O’Brien, Editor

The Conservatives

While the media frequently focuses on the Presidency and Congress, the third branch of the United States government is rarely looked at until a new justice is appointed. Few people have a good understanding of the Supreme Court’s role as an agency and its members’ political philosophies beyond their party. This article will examine each conservative Justice’s judicial philosophy, background and controversies. 

(Chief Justice) John Roberts: 

The Chief Administrator of the Court, Roberts has the additional responsibility of representing the Court when addressing Congress and the president. He also works as the mediator for impeachment hearings and swears in the president. Chief Justice Roberts worked under the Reagan and first Bush administrations as a member of the justice department. He then worked in private practice for fourteen years, frequently appearing before the Supreme Court. His highest profile case was Microsoft’s antitrust trial. The second Bush appointed him to the District of Columbia’s appellate court and then to the Supreme Court in 2005. Roberts frequently swings between the conservative and NY Times liberal camp of the court when writing opinions. He firmly believes in the concept of judicial restraint; however, he does support the idea of overturning laws if they are flagrantly unconstitutional. He frequently rules in favor of big business and supports civil liberties. He authored numerous opinions against segregation and almost always votes in favor of free speech. While originally ruling against gay rights, he eventually switched positions and now frequently sides with the liberal camp on trials regarding LGBTQ issues. Roberts usually sides with liberal justices on abortion cases.

Clarence Thomas: 

Thomas started his career in the Reagan administration as the chairman of the Equal Educational Opportunity Commission. Bush senior appointed him to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and in 1991, to the Supreme Court. He narrowly passed the Senate’s vote for his approval because of sexual assault violations by Anita Hill. Despite the fact that he almost always votes in favor of states’ rights, he voted in favor of Bush’s policies on executive privilege  and supports the idea of a powerful executive. He has voted against LGBT rights as well as abortion rights; he frequently makes the argument that the federal government has no control over these matters because the constitution contains nothing discussing them. He is a strict textualist, meaning that he believes in abiding by the original meaning of the constitution.

Samuel Alito: 

Alito worked as an assistant Solicitor General under the Reagan administration and argued 12 cases to the Supreme Court. He then went on to become assistant Attorney General where he worked tirelessly to increase the power of law enforcement. Afterwards, he worked as the US attorney for the district of New Jersey. He worked as an adjunct professor at Seton Hall, teaching constitutional law until he was appointed to appellate court’s third district. He was nominated to the Supreme Court by George W. Bush. His judicial beliefs are the most pro-business on the court; he frequently publishes opinions stating that corporations must have stronger rights and must be seen as living organizations. He also remains tough on crime and has strong tendencies to support states’ rights. He has sided against minorities and women in numerous equal and civil rights cases.

Neil Gorsuch: 

Gorsuch began his career in public service as principal deputy counsel to the associate attorney general. He was then appointed to the tenth court of appeals by George W. Bush. Donald Trump nominated him to the vacancy that was unable to be filled by President Obama which was unable to be filled because the Republican Senate refused to hold hearings for Obama’s appointment of Merrick Garland. The reasoning behind this was it was too soon to the next election. Gorsuch is an advocate for judicial restraint and believes that liberals allow judicial activism to play too large of a role in courtroom decisions. He, like Thomas and Alito, is a textualist. He believes the constitution must be followed by its original intent. He has sided with liberal wing numerous times, especially with abortion and Native American laws. He has also voted in favor of the LGBTQ community.

Brett Kavanaugh: 

Kavanaugh began his career working with Attorney Ken Starr, best known for working as prosecution for the Clinton impeachment trial. Kavanaugh helped author the Starr report for the impeachment trial. Kavanaugh also worked for the Bush legal team in 2001. His job was to help stop the Gore camp’s ballot recount attempt in Florida. President Bush nominated him to the appellate court afterwards. Donald Trump nominated Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, where he barely was approved by the Senate by a 50-48 vote. Kavanaugh was accused of sexual assault by three women. Kavanaugh believes in executive privilege and arguably has the most leeway given to the executive branch of government out of all of the justices. He has voted against LGBTQ workplace rights, claiming that Congress should be in charge of issuing opinions on these matters, not the courts. He also has issued opinions against abortion. Kavanaugh has ruled in favor of reviewing Trump’s tax records.

The Liberals

While the media focuses on the Presidency and Congress frequently, the third branch of the United States government is rarely looked at until a new justice is appointed. Few people have a good understanding of the Supreme Court’s role as an agency and its members’ political philosophies beyond their party. This article will examine each liberal Justice’s judicial philosophy, background and controversies. 

Ruth Bader Ginsberg: 

Ginsberg spent most of her early career working for the Women’s Rights department of the ACLU after she struggled to get work because of her gender. She also worked as an adjunct professor at Columbia University before being appointed to the Appellate Court by Jimmy Carter. In 1993, President Clinton appointed her to replace Byron White’s seat on the court. She firmly believes that all members of the liberal wing should have one voice, unlike the conservative bloc who frequently make multiple dissenting opinions. She firmly believes in a right to abortion and has been known to write majority opinions for cases discussing gender rights. She often cites foreign and international law as reasoning behind her opinions, a relatively unheard of concept on the court. She is a firm believer in judicial activism and frequently uses her position to push the Democratic agenda, a practice many find unsavory for her position.

Stephen Breyer: 

Breyer worked as a professor at Harvard Law School and the Kennedy Public Policy school before his appointment to the Appellate Court by Jimmy Carter. He was well known as the country’s best expert on administrative law. Clinton appointed him to SCOTUS directly after Ginsburg in 1994. Breyer believes in sociological juripendce, believing that law must change as present circumstances change over time. He believes originalism is fundamentally flawed as the nation’s issues change constantly over time, thus the law must as well. He has an incredibly liberal interpretation of law in that every trial should interpret each law to provide as much liberty as possible to the individual being tried. He is also vehemently opposed to the Second Amendment.

Sonia Sotomayor: 

Sotomayor started her career as assistant district attorney for New York. She was tough on crime as well as extremely tough on officers who committed acts of police brutality. George H.W. Bush appointed her to the district court for the Southern District of New York. Clinton appointed her to the second appellate court, and eleven years later she was appointed to SCOTUS by Barack Obama. She was narrowly not appointed because she made comments discussing her race when being appointed, which led to senators questioning her ability to remain impartial. She frequently votes in favor of upholding First, Second, and Fourth Amendment rights over state decisions. She almost always votes in favor of minorities in civil rights disputes as well as women. She has also voted in favor of upholding citizen’s property rights over the state. She also votes in favor of unions and against big business. 

Elena Kagan:

 Kagan worked as a professor at the University of Chicago Law School before becoming an associate White House council and then a policy advisor for the Clinton Administration. She then worked as a professor at Harvard Law and became its first female dean. In 2009, she was appointed as the first female solicitor general for the Obama administration. She was then nominated to the Supreme Court without serving on the bench prior. She often votes in favor of a defendant’s First and Sixth Amendment rights. She is also known for writing decisions opposing gerrymandering. She is known for writing her opinions with rhetoric rather than legal facts.

obriend10@lasalle.edu

David O’Brien, Editor

The Biden-Sanders manifesto contains the entire policy agenda of the Democratic presidential nominee, Joe Biden. It would be impossible to condense all one hundred and ten pages into a Collegian article, so this article will examine individual policies and summarize them for the busy reader. 

The cornerstone of Biden’s plan is to use federal funding to create a new clean energy initiative. By allocating federal funds to the climate initiative, the carbon footprint will be reduced while simultaneously creating much-needed new jobs in the post-coronavirus job market. The Democratic nominee plans to allocate funds to retrofit two million households and four million buildings to make them more energy efficient. By doing so, numerous government jobs will be created. Furthermore, Biden plans to immediately rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement and use the United States’ power to help enforce stronger climate policies throughout the world. Federal bills will be introduced that will remove carbon pollution from power plants by 2035. The administration will also attempt to expand solar and wind power through community-based efforts across the country. Biden plans to provide federally-funded education for the impoverished and underrepresented to help lead this effort, as well as providing a New Deal-esque program to put people who may have lost their jobs from the COVID-19 pandemic to work. 

The manifesto asserts new energy policies will lead to a lower power bill for households across the country and will increase the life expectancy of the average American through cleaner air and water created by a lack of pollution. The federal government will also pass legislation providing better health benefits to those affected from ailments stemming from the fossil fuel industry. Tax cuts will be given to businesses that have clean air initiatives. Businesses that do contribute to the carbon footprint will be held accountable and forced to provide funding for cleaning up industrial sites so that they can be replaced with new businesses that help restore some of the lost economic opportunity. The Biden administration will create a climate change task force that represents all facets of the Democratic party, co-chaired by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and former Secretary of State John Kerry. 

While the main focus of the environmental agenda is pollution, the manifesto also discusses the clean water crisis. The crisis will be resolved by investing in wastewater as well as freshwater infrastructure. The federal government will prioritize low-income areas for federal and state grants for public schools so they can install clean water filters and remediate lead in drinking water. The administration will also focus on assisting poor, rural communities by utilizing the Rural Utility Service and the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. Finally, Biden plans to overhaul the transportation industry by making strict regulations for manufacturing cars, providing government grants to the scientific progress of electric cars and invest in clean cars and buses. Biden’s sweeping environmental plan is just one aspect of his administrative plan. While there is no way to know what aspects of this sweeping plan he would prioritize if elected to office, Biden certainly has big goals for the United States’ involvement in reducing the carbon footprint.

obriend10@lasalle.edu