Is There a Future For Graduates of Political Science?

Can one make a living out of political science? The answer to this question will be answered below. But before proceeding, it is also important to know the basics of this course. So, what really is political science? This question is often the most basic point that students of law, politicians, and even laymen are trying to answer in their quest to understand politics. At its most basic core, political science is the study of political behavior, political processes and dynamics, as well as the study of governments in general. Being one of the branches of social sciences, political science aims to analyze, describe, and predict political behavior in relation with existing political systems. Although it is considered science, political science revolves around subjective elucidations rather than verifiable empirical data. As a science, its most essential function is to help individuals understand interpersonal relationships as well as study how relationships between individuals affect other individuals, groups, nation, state, and governments.

As an academic subject, political science is a relatively new form of discipline, which has only gained enough recognition in recent decades in the United States and other countries. It has many subfields such as philosophy, international relations, theory of political systems, political economy, policy studies, and other related fields. Formal students of political science aim to get enough understanding and knowledge of politics in general to help them in their political career. In the United States, graduates of political science are called political scientists. They can get jobs in many government agencies including exciting ones in local, state, and federal government. Some graduates can also go into law, business, electoral politics, and even international organizations.

Job responsibilities can range from boring to exciting. This includes analyzing the entire spectrum of political behavior, public opinion, taxation, public administration, and voting. Research on many public issues and political relationships are also part of the job. Political scientists can also make recommendations as well as suggestions on matters that affect the environment, business, and citizens. Elections such as the coming 2010 Federal Election in Australia can get varied opinions on TV, radio, and other media from many political scientists involved or monitoring the event.

Since getting into career options in college considers the chance of getting employed after graduation, or the high number of future employers, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States made a study on the course. The Bureau claimed that jobs available for political scientists is constantly increasing. Thus, there is bright future in this field just like any other career. Average earning of political scientists depends on their education, geographical position, and experience, but usually the starting salary is $27,000. Those with advanced degrees can make more than the average. Further, bachelor's degree holders can also move into paralegals or administrative assistants vacancies. Many graduates of this course can also employ themselves in colleges and universities. On top of this, they can also boost their income by teaching summer school courses, writing books, and even doing consulting works.

Politics Vs The Watercooler - Political Protocol For the Workplace

On the stage in political theatre, we as a nation have been spectators and participants of the greatest, most suspenseful and dramatic miniseries -The Presidential Election of 2008. No wonder this has been our country's current recreation. Do you recall the old adage that politics is the only game for adults?

The players/candidates must be willing do all that can be done to win or they should not be in the public life. Victory is decreed by demonizing your opponents by exchanging vitriol verbal blows. We as the spectators/voters thrive on a culture of a dog-eat-dog mentality. Thus, the metaphor of the theatre sets the stage for "Blood Sports."

There is no need to ponder why debates spill from the family living room, the university classrooms, and other social and religious venues directly into the workplace.

According to a study by Office Team in Medo, California, while once a refuge of a no politics and no religious zone, the workplace has triggered a maelstrom of political debate at the office water-cooler.

The rules of this "blood sport" rely on human nature. The sides we align ourselves in this arena are based on our values. Consequently, our values emotionally define our decisions. If we impose our convictions on others while negating their feelings, it sets forth a dynamite charge of threatening emotions.

Instinctually, the fight or flight response is elicited. While this is a life-saving mechanism, it can also churn dire consequences when produced in a work environment.

Civility expert P.M. Forni, Director of the Civility Initiative at John Hopkins University, found that it is up to employees to handle these concerns at the cubicle level. Most managers will not legislate good manners or dampen debates. Therefore, the employee must use caution in debating and respecting the opinions of their co-workers.

Here are some suggestions of workplace boundaries:

- Stop! Take a minute to access if the time and place is appropriate for political discussion.

- Do not assume others share the same political views as you.

- Do not feel pressured to participate in office debates. Your opinion is just that - yours.

- Be cautious of how you express your thoughts. A friendly discussion is one thing, proselytizing is quite another.

- Be sure to show mutual respect. Remember to give others the opportunity to discuss and share their opinions. Please refrain from defending your views by employing profane language, interrupting or ignoring.

- Do acknowledge your co-worker's good points in his theories.

- Do not judge a person's politics by how your co-worker dresses. A conservative dresser can be quite liberal and vice versa.

- Remove yourself from a discussion with your superior when you do not see eye to eye. Remember you are on the "job" and who is "boss."

- Always remember that the workplace is for work and not for campaigning. Please restrain your passions and your mouth!

In the end, it is up to the individual to find the wisdom to display the skills to remain professional at a time when "we" versus "they" thinking is rampant. Respect your position as an employee at the workplace and as a voter in the voting booth.

Ms. Zazulak Pedro has combined her educational skills in psychology and her certifications in business, children and international etiquette into a unique designation as a "Social Engineer." She strives in not only in teaching the bare knuckles of etiquette, but to delve further in the psychology of etiquette.

The Protocol Praxis incorporates etiquette, NLP, non-verbal and verbal communication skills with covert hypnosis. Empowerment, persuasion and other life-skills become powerful tools that are employed to help one become their own master of their destiny.

Sources of Political News

What source do you use to get political news? Are you sure you are reading or watching an unbiased version of events? Recent polls suggest that most journalists tend to be liberal and thus are more likely to vote Democrats than Republicans. Depending on the individual or the network they work for, their private opinions can sometimes affect the quality of the news they broadcast.

It is a journalist's job to bring the news to the public but it should be presented without being influenced by their personal opinion. They are obliged to tell the truth and remain independent from the event being covered. This is fine in theory but in practice how often are the news people or the publications or networks they represent impartial?

Some people believe that political news is always biased depending on the source of the information. For example certain individuals will only believe what they hear on Fox news and not CNN, while others prefer CNN. Some people believe that Fox leans to the right while others maintain it just provides the news in a format that suits their listeners. At the end of the day, it is a matter of education. You should try to obtain information from a variety of sources so that you can form your own educated opinion on current events. Political news will often be controversial. Good news never sold newspapers or increased ratings!

But the people reporting political news should let the facts prove the point. They shouldn't be tempted to stretch the truth particularly if the reason for doing so is to improve ratings. But this is a theoretical argument. In a society where the news stations with better ratings are more successful and thus earn more money, it is probably unrealistic to expect them to remain totally impartial to events happening in political waters.

American Politics - Power of the Governed

Perhaps the most important measure that the citizens of any democracy have to employ in order to express their opinion of their government is the power to vote. It is via this measure that the founding fathers intended to give the citizens the power to guide the government and its policies. However, modern day ease of communications has opened a new avenue for the nation's citizens to communicate with their government - the public opinion poll.

Some experts assert that in this day of the permanent political campaign, the public opinion poll is even more effective than the vote in holding elected officials accountable and that such polls virtually dictate the behaviors of politicians. Certainly, such polls mean that politicians are under constant scrutiny and that their behavior can be immediately relayed to the public. On the other hand, the opinions of the constituents can be relayed to the politician equally as fast. This sort of immediate feedback is seen as paramount to the performance of the modern-day politician.

Not so long ago, the voting public was the guiding factor in determining the nation's elected government. Voters are still a force to be reckoned with, of course, but it is increasingly the power of the opinion poll that guides political policy. Lawmakers can gauge public sentiment regarding a matter before they actually initiate policy. Although polls are certainly not definitive, they are certainly indicative of the public voice on many issues. However, such polls are somewhat limited. Polls can present a number of acceptable responses but cannot give each person's individual opinion regarding any particular manner. Additionally, polls may try to separate the voting public from non-voters, with the most success, of course, being with polls that are conducted only with registered voters, but impromptu polls rely heavily on the honesty of the individual being polled.

For instance, consider the upcoming presidential election and how the news is constantly referring to which candidate is "ahead in the polls". How many times have citizens heard the phrase, "the polls indicate...."? Although polls and public opinion are not 100% reliable predictors of who will win the election or what the public policy of the day will be, they are definitely indicators of what is important to the nation's voting public. Some experts insist that public opinion polls are so predictive that hoards of voters may not even bother to vote if they are not among the polled majority. Whether this is true or not, American's do rely heavily on their polls to define public opinion.

The issue of voting has been proven in the last two elections to be less of a factor than it once was in determining the nation's government. The last two American presidents have been elected despite the fact that they were not the beneficiaries of the majority vote. The Electoral College has been under debate for quite some time as an outdated system of election and events surrounding the last two elections may have cemented that sentiment. Certainly, the majority of public opinion polls would likely indicate that the majority of Americans would like to have the electoral system reevaluated. Most elections, however, are not so close as to become issues between the popular vote and the electoral vote.

Polls are easily manipulated also, and may be therefore somewhat unreliable. As mentioned earlier, individuals who respond to a poll are generally given a choice between several answers. Again, the actual nuances of their opinions are not conveyed in these responses, although they may be noted by the pollster, and even passed along as part of the final results. Still, it is the wording of the poll itself that may ultimately guide the respondent. For this reason, opinion polls may be less reliable than election polls. Election polls ask the respondent to pick a candidate whereas opinion polls rely on a number of factors for accuracy, including the complexity of the information that the respondent has been subjected to, their base of information, their personal beliefs, and even how they interpret the issues. Therefore, public opinion polls are subject to bias and error.

Still, it is the public opinion poll that permanently campaigning politicians must rely on to determine how they are doing at their jobs and whether or not they should attempt reelection. As the politician invests more and more time into campaigning, the public is watchful and waiting to render an opinion. The politician must now campaign for party representation, then for office, and then immediately for the next election; always remaining as aware of how his or her actions are interpreted and greeted by the nation's voting public.

Democracy and Public Opinion

Since democracy has been defined as, "the Government of the people, by the people and for the people," the crucial role of public opinion cannot be underestimated. It is the public which gives its views about a government by exercising its franchise in the ballot box.

In theory yes, a democracy is a form of Government in which the people have a say in the day-to-day functioning of the Government through the representatives it sends to the Parliament. The very existence of such a Government is well-dependent on the people. So much so good, but, for the people to have some views on subjects of national importance, it is imperative that the public be of some standard of intelligence and knowledge.

Public opinion plays a decisive role in making or breaking a government but the public whose opinion is so very important for the very government but the public whose opinion is so very important for the very existence of the government has got to be of some level so as to be able to hold the reins of the government, to the advantage of the nation. If this is not so, as we see in India, public opinion can be held for a price, it can be bought for a gift, then does such a public opinion have any value or relevance? If a purchased public opinion is to form a government then, Only God may bless or save the fate of the country. It is also quite appropriately said that, a people get the Government they deserve. This is but natural in a democracy for, the people vote to power, types of their own liking and standards, so if the public is uneducated, ignorant and fickle, what result oriented Government can it provide to the country. In such a case, public opinion cannot be really trusted, for, its opinions have been bought by the politicians or political parties for a price. An opinion so made can hardly be expected to last for long, for, it was never a well thought of opinion, it was just a purchased one. Moreover, such an opinion has also the inherent danger of being re-purchased by a higher bidder.

Besides being bought, an uneducated public can also be very easily misguided or, emotionally worked up, in order to get votes at the ballot box. Now, votes got in this way have to be maintained also in the same way, and so this business of give and take goes on endlessly, and the poor illiterate public is taken for a ride. They vote for people for their face value, and taking their speeches as gospel truth but, as soon as the politicians take command of their gains, the voters are clearly and unfortunately forgotten. Thus, the politician only exploits the ignorant and uneducated voters, and make them act as per their own ends. This sort of a picture of democracy is so truly prevalent in India because, our masses are ignorant, uneducated and emotional. They get carried away by the high sounding words, patriotic speeches, and they achieve no goals. The picture is such that, no matter who wins in the fray, the poor common man, who is the backbone of the democracy, gets noting in the bargain. He continues to remain where he was, just to be satisfied with imaginary power in the set up of the Government, and to be remembered only after five years when, once again he will be the all important hand in the formation of the new Government. He will once again see rosy pictures of his future, and the politicians of the highest price will keep ruling. This misrule of our Indian democracy continues to persist because the backbone is very weak being misappropriated. How can a strong body stand straight and firm on a weak backbone?

However, today, after fifty years of misrule, the Indian electorate has somehow become a little alert and has started realizing that, he has been used and exploited by the politican for his own ends, but, since he is uneducated, the poor voter does not understand how he can get out of this rut of being misused. He does understand the misdeeds of the people in power, but he still does not have the insight of how to remedy the present ills of the country. The voter has at last realized that, he has been used as a pawn all these years, and has got no gain in the bargain. At times now, the common man also raises a voice but, again his being uneducated becomes a handicap, for, he usually raises a stir on irrelevant issues which just get brushed aside. He fights for non-issues, this again just because he does not know what to raise a stir for, and how to get about the tackling of issues like inefficiency corruption and other misdeeds of political big wigs.
In such a situation, it can be really said that, a democracy gets converted into a mobocracy, and, public opinion, the backbone of the democracy a mere sham. Getting public opinion has just become as style and eyewash for, what the politicians have been doing for so many years is only imposing there own opinion on the illiterate public.

For awareness and arousal of public opinion, the Television and the press can play a very dominant role. They can help in building public opinion and explaining problems to the masses. However, in India, the politician has managed to get such a tight grip on the media also that this is also mostly tainted, unbelievable and even wrong. With such an aura how will we ever have the correct public opinion built up, on any issue of national importance. This is just propped up by speeches of politicians and tainted media, and, when this works upon the uneducated masses, a messy decoction is the result, as is so evident in India.

Public opinion which is the very essence of a democracy is a hollow farce made up by tales workings on the illiterate masses. Thus, it is very clear that, democracy is meant for a highly educated country where the masses can understand, think, and view all issues and then give their consent. Besides, a democracy is meant for a highly disciplined country where, the masses know that, all rules and laws are meant to be followed and strictly obeyed. A country where the general public is highly illiterate indisciplined, and in a permanent readiness to break any law made, is, absolutely unfit for a democracy. The opinion of such a public can be of no use for the improvement and progress of the country. To cap it all, where, the highest rung of the ladder, the politician is corrupt and unmeaning, the face of the democracy is destroyed and public opinion is not more than just the view of a few selfish politicians, who only work up sentiments and get the desired opinion.

Thus, we can see that, India is the most unfit country for a democratic set up, and its public hardly fit enough to have any opinion. Above all, the politician here is the most corrupt class, and has intentionally kept the masses uneducated for five decades as, he can play merry hell only when, and till the masses are unaware. The democracy of India is in shambles as, the backbone is too weak to hold the system its full lease. To summarise, the democracy, in India, the twins of democracy and public opinion are both dead, or at least taking their life breaths from some internal strengths.

Politics of Popular Culture

One cannot live on a myth in the present; the tradition is being constantly transformed; old is giving way to new in ways more than one. The new changes, or the crossover of trends and fashions, may be generating a feeling of existential urgency; the sublime seems to be melding with the trivial and the creative with the conventional. A sort of re-orientation is going-on so rapidly that the classical concepts of culture appear outdated.

It is also a fact that the greatest number of new ideas in contemporary art, literature and culture have been coming out from the West. Western artists and cultural leaders have been extending the concept of what constitutes contemporary art. It is important to take note of a convergence of new attitudes, especially as there has been a marked shift from the idealist to the materialist view.

The fabric of popular culture, now a celebratory, is interwoven with changes in the world of media, along side too much Soap Operas, MTV music, McDonald fast food, sexist jokes, designer-label jeans and aerobic sports-wear--all with a view to maintaining 'standards'. The so-called 'cultural industries' have been denigrated as tools of the hegemonic classes to impose a passive subservience on the majority of people, be it Europe, America, Asia or Africa. They manipulate the multi layered site of contemporary consumerist culture as well as the emerging hybridization of cultural identity.

A scrutiny of the 'popular', its texts and practices, should help us in negotiating the profound shifts in culture studies as also in relating post-modernist orthodoxy to the post-Cold War developments (in the erstwhile Soviet bloc, and/or East European countries), post-apartheid developments (in South Africa and elsewhere on the African continent), post-colonial developments (in Asian and African countries), and more recently, post-Sept 11, 2001 developments (in South/South-east/West Asia, middle East, USA, and Europe).

The politics of popular culture, howsoever post-modernist or post-colonial, is essentially the politics of the ways in which we see ourselves, just as the cultural, the social, and the economic are hardly easily distinguishable from each other. The relationship between popular culture and its two arms, commerce and profit, is highly problematic. Instead of passively consuming a product, users now actively absorb it and reworth it to construct their own meaning of self, of social identity, and group cohesion.

After the Sept 11 terrorist attack on American soil, there has been a greater American hegemonic political and economic presence in every country: TV programmes, newspapers and magazines have been replete with American style and vision. Gradually, the American domination here, there and everywhere, has resulted in a struggle by the subordinate and subaltern forces, even terrorist forces, to demolish it.

A slow ideological indoctrination (to sustain consumerist culture) of the masses, especially the expanding middle class by powerful interests, is going on. The middle class culture is frequently less affiliated to specific class, religion, race, country or politics, and unofficially also remains indifferent to 'national' questions, practicing a sort of 'transnational' solidarity, as far as consumerism is concerned. The American popular culture has given rise, not so much to economic exploitation as the capacity to be able to represent something, or someone, in a peculiar way: as symbolic power; as popular culture within the ambit of power. The media society - whatever its form, shape, size, or colour - articulates this power, perhaps selectively, in a contradictory fashion throwing open for others to decide with whom to associate or empathize. It exposes the mechanisms of identity-creation, participates in identity politics, creates awareness of exclusion or inclusion, and constructs counter-narratives with new critical spaces and social practice. It acts as "central political agent" of the powerful.

The politics of popular culture reveals the conditions under which relationships of power have been shaped in various parts of the world and apparently developed in an emancipating way as everyday culture, or high culture, where new things are emerging and creativity is thriving. In music, for example, since the mid-1990s, musicians have been more lucrative. Choreographers have developed a new sense of body movement and dance aesthesis. Computer evolution has already led to a 'net culture' which links various art forms. Literature is already rooted in this world today and trends in fashion industry are set by FTV models.

At times it may appear difficult to reconcile the various impressions, including the desire to break free of all constraints in art or destruction of its intrinsic significance. The inherent contradictions and heterogeneity of the 'melting pot' that popular culture seems to have turned into may not help us open the path to the human consciousness or even initiate an intellectual debate. But whom to blame when "art blends so seamlessly into the utilitarian"? To quote Hanno Rauterberg, "Art, after all, is not dead, it is in a state of self-induced paralysis."

We are marching into an indistinct future. We experience the effects of globalization in such fields as communication, the media, and the financial markets just as we are experiencing fragmentation of politics vis-à-vis widespread religious, casteist and ethnic conflict, secular nationalism, and regional fundamentalism. At the same time, we are witnessing impoverishment and economic marginalization of a large part of the society. Almost all accepted norms and values are being called into question, just as standardization and differentiation obtain at the same time. However, the struggle continues for coexistence of the glorious past and naked modernization almost everywhere.

What appears more appropriate is the need to appreciate the emergence of a greater degree of interculturalism. The ruling politicians should respect ones right to be different and help create new cultural spaces for others to belong. They should help defuse, absorb and avoid those conflicts that result from the collision of world religions and cultures which are rigidly separated and social differences must be honoured and dogmatism must give way to dialogue. Our living together in a global civilization is not possible without some sort of global ethos on the part of our country's politicians.

Political Claws Slash Into 'The Viewpoints' of Women on the View and Around the World

Sarah Palin has become the seemingly great divide...not just amongst the Democrats who used to vote for Hillary Clinton, before she lost out to Barrack Obama for the next presidential nomination, but, this little policy known woman from Alaska, has set a fire onto the intellectual minds of women across Republican lines. The DNC introduced the Obamas and the Bidens, their policies... what change means times of economic recession ( something that an esteemed member of the Republican party & dear friend of John Mccain's deemed 'a nation whiners") as jobs are lost, affordable health care diminishes, food & gas prices increase...

John Mccain decides to put one over on the DNC...He's advised to do the opposite of what Obama did in selecting his VP...get a woman. Mccain goes & selects a seemingly clueless woman who presided over a small group in Alaska's government for a short period of time...according to alleged reports, the actual business making decisions/footwork of being Governor of Alaska was handled by other people in office, unless it involved bridges, money & chefs...

As the investigation of Mrs. Palin, a soccer mom, appeals to women who once supported Hillary Clinton's get underway in Alaska, she has managed within a close knit Republican watchdog circle to dodge the real issues...now, she'll reportedly be facing a reporter who according to some blogs, remains cordial, but, cooled toward the Demoncratic Nominee for president &...therefore might not ask the VP the hard questions... Bias in the media? Say it ain't sooo...

One News Anchor when reporting at the beginning of the Republican National Convention made an analysis in regards to how the RNC was held up the first day in reference to hurricane Hanna wrecking havoc on the Gulf Coast...this esteemed person went on to allude that this wasn't done during the DNC...what the reported failed to mention, however, is that hurricane Hanna had not touched down during the DNC!

Now, the women at The View are having their say...There seems to be the one very outspoken republican who attempts to shield criticism against her parties nominee, even when the criticism is warranted ...Palin was caught on tape saying how the war in Iraq was God's War... even Sarah Palin must know that the Iraq War has been deemed "Bush's War" because of his egotistical stance instead of fact.

Joy Behar appears to want to say, 'enough already' as she make facial contortions at the insanity of it all...Whoopi is trying to stay impartial, but when Elizabeth continues to make, like Sarah Palin, unsubstantiated allegations against Obama, then, Ms. Goldberg loses her cool & rightly so.

Sherri Shepard seems to have become friendly off camera with the staunch republican, Elizabeth Hasselbeck and she fears, apparently alienating this 'friendship' so keeps her true thoughts close to her bosom...which, Ms. Hasselbeck never does...As a writer who reads/research many opinion/views of all political front runners...the most disturbing thing that keeps gnawing at my writer's pen is the way truth seems to be not the norm in the political arena....

As the war of words continue over this woman of mystery and once perceived sane lose their intellect in their ability to comprehend fact from fiction...my one thought remains that if god forbid, this woman is elected VP...John Mccain at 70-something becomes the next president...what happens , god forbid, if he can no longer memorize his speech and uses the one written for his VP instead?

Top 10 Sites For Discussing Politics Online

With the 2008 Presidential elections swiftly approaching, for those of us in the United States, here are a few websites those who enjoy debating politics online may want to be aware of. These websites aren't listed in any particular order and all are worth taking a look at:

GovSpot.com

A non-partisan government information portal designed to simplify the search for the best and most relevant government information online. GovSpot is a free resource offering a collection of hand selected government and civic resources.

It is one of the more useful and informative guide to government information on the internet.

A virtual resource center for U.S. citizens, students, educators, business people, government employees and anyone exploring the worldwide web for government information. GovSpot.com makes it very easy to find government websites and political information.

Epolitics.com

Lots of websites talk about politics, but only a tiny few discuss anything other than one particular point of view. Very few discuss online advocacy and online politics broadly and as a craft the way it's done at epolitics.com. Focusing on what methods work and when, and without selling a particular product or consultancy.

USPpoliticsonline.com

A lively forum for those seeking to discuss politics online. All views on politics and other subject matter are welcome here.

CitizenJoe.org

CitizenJoe is a multi-partisan nonprofit website. With liberals, conservatives and in all those in between. The sites aims to engage all Americans in open, fact-based dialogue on national policy debates by cutting through the spin and getting past partisanship.

In the upcoming political season these are just a few websites to keep in mind if you enjoy discussing politics online.

What Political Action Committees are Looking for in a Resume

What do political action committees look for when hiring employees to help them carry out their various political endeavors in order to get the candidates selected to office that they are interested in? What types of people are political action committees looking to hire to help them lobby our elected representatives to help get their way for their group?

Well, first they are looking for smart people who have good social skills and are not afraid to lie and have extremely low ethical standards. If you are a borderline criminal and you could care less about the rest of society and you only want to make a lot of money then working for a political action committee were you can use your skills as a liar then it makes a lot of sense for your future career path and it is all legal.

Are all political action committee employees and staff dishonest and disreputable and willing to tell lies, create misdirection and misrepresent the truth? No, not all of them are some are stupid followers who just listen to the rhetoric and believe it and purport whatever the political action committee tells them to say.

Political action committees also look for prostitutes both male and female to help them with their various endeavors. If you are a gay homosexual who is a big liar you can work for political action committee and blow your congressman. And you will not need very much on your resume to prove that you're able to do that as the political action committee human resource person may give you the opportunity to demo your services. Consider all this in 2006.

Team Politics - Where You Fit in at Your Work

Organizational politics is disliked by many people. Yet, it is an unavoidable reality for those who wish to get things done within an organization. Here are three tips to help you navigate the team politics of the workplace:

1. Make yourself indispensable
The more that others must rely on you in order to succeed, the stronger your political base is within an organization. Go beyond the requirements of the job, to discover more about your co-workers. What are they attempting to accomplish at work? What are some of their goals outside of the workplace? If you can help them to achieve what they want regularly, you will have more power than those who ignore others' needs. Key players are generally not replaced within an organization, or only with great difficulty. Become one.
2. Choose to back causes selectively
Whenever possible, support only those projects and people who have an excellent chance of succeeding within your organization. You should not ignore those which are likely to fail, but you do want to keep your distance from being associated with losing efforts which will never get the needed political support to succeed. The best way to distinguish between the two? An eye for the fine details helps greatly. Do not just guess-- know (or find out) how others feel about certain causes, and only when necessary discuss your own preferences. Remember, too much disclosure is more likely to hurt than help. Find out how sensitive an issue is, before you commit to an unpopular position.
3. Remain allies with as many people as you possibly can
Allies can help you in tough political battles. These may include both those who work within the business, as well as those who are external, yet have strong influence on the business' decisions. The better your network, the more resources and options you have at your disposal. This provides you with the power and freedom to accomplish more, or to have good exit strategies available, should you need to advance your career by switching to a different firm.

So, when you make yourself a key employee, choose the right causes to support, and keep as many supportive allies as you can, it is much more likely that you will be successful at navigating the politics of your organization, and on your team. This ensures longevity in your own career at a firm, as well as helping you to get your initiatives supported and passed within the business.

French Politics - The Electoral System

Penetrating the many layers of mystery surrounding the French political system and presidential elections can at times seem a daunting task for a Brit or an American whose own system is quite different from that of the French. For an American having grown up in a two-party system with party conventions, primary elections and an electoral college, the French multi-party framework where seemingly anyone can toss their hat into the ring presents a unique challenge. And the differences between the British parliamentary system, although a few similarities exist in the selection of the prime minister, are equally vast. With all eyes turned to the upcoming presidential elections and the political campaign that is now getting under way and with so much time devoted to the issue in the French print media and especially on the nightly news on TV, it might be well to take a look at just how the French electorate goes about selecting a new president.

France has a parliamentary political system that has been refined and changed repeatedly through the political upheaval of the French Revolution in 1789 and the five successive constitutions. The Fifth Republic was born in 1958 with the adoption of a new constitution that fit more precisely with the political agenda of Charles de Gaulle than the first post-war constitution of 1946. According to the 1958 constitution, France is a parliamentary democracy with both a president and a prime minister. The prime minister is appointed by the president but must be confirmed by the deputies in the General Assembly, which means that he or she is always from the majority party in the General Assembly, a situation similar to that in Great Britain. The president, on the other hand, is elected by direct universal suffrage (a constitutional amendment in 1962 established the direct election of the president). Presidential elections and legislative elections are never held on the same dates, as is the case in the United States.

There are a myriad of political parties in France, which can contribute to the perceived complexity of the electoral system in the eyes of citizens of other countries. Each party has the right to present a candidate for president (more on the various parties in forthcoming issues), which means that for the first round of elections there can be as many as 40 different candidates on the ballot. This first round of voting serves the same purpose in essence as the primary elections in the US, with a significant difference: should one candidate get more than 50% of the votes cast on the first round, he or she is declared the winner and a second round will not be necessary. The two top vote getters in the first round will then face each other in the second round, which is held two weeks after the first. In the seven elections since direct universal election of the president was instigated, it has never happened that a particular candidate won the election outright on the first round. It has almost always been a candidate from the left facing a candidate from the right - one notable exception was the complete surprise in 2002 when Jean-Marie Le Pen from the far-right Front National finished second to Jacques Chirac and ahead of the socialist candidate Lionel Jospin.

The current media frenzy in France involves the selection of the various candidates from the respective parties. There is considerable suspense on both the right and the left as to who will represent the major parties: Nicolas Sarkozy, the current minister of the interior and the first secretary of the reformed Gaullist party UMP is considered to be the strong front runner for that party's nomination. His only opposition could be the current prime minister Dominique de Villepin. Both men have ambitions to be president, but Sarkozy enjoys a far greater advantage in the public opinion polls. On the left, the suspense has been even greater, especially within the Socialist Party where Ségolène Royal has caused not only quite a stir within the party but something close to a revolution in French politics. She handily defeated the former prime minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin for the presidency of the Poitou-Charen-tes Region and has since rallied considerable support within the Socialist Party. Royal's declaration of her intention to be a candidate for the candidacy of the party was welcomed by her supporters, but it obviously irked several of the stalwarts within the party who, rightly or wrongly, felt it was their turn. The likes of Lionel Jospin, Dominique Strauss-Kahn (DSK), Jack Lang and Laurent Fabius, who have since been labeled "Les Eléphants", were anything but subtle in their opposition to and criticism of Ségolène Royal. The result was also something quite new in French politics: an internal "primary" election to select the presidential candidate.

Jospin and Lang withdrew from the race leaving Royal, Strauss-Kahn and Fabius in contention for the nomination. Following a series of three televised debates, the "militants" of the Socialist Party voted for their presidential candidate in the first of two scheduled rounds on November 16th (a second round, if necessary, on November 23rd). In spite of polls showing DSK closing ranks on Royal, the results have been characterized as a "tidal wave" victory for Ségolène Royal. With 60.62% of the votes cast, she won the nomination on the first round. DSK received 20.83% and Fabius 18.54%. With Ségolène Royal's overwhelming win of the party's nomination, she will not, however, be the first woman candidate for the presidency, but, according to the polls, she is the first woman with a strong chance of actually becoming the president of France and the most likely person of either sex to be able to defeat Nicolas Sarkozy, the likely candidate from the right.

Roger Stevenson is a professor of French language and literature in the United States for 30 years with six years of experience in directing study-abroad programmes in France.

One Issue Politics is Wrong For Christians and the National Rifle Association - Choosing Candidates

The National Rifle Association explains their possible endorsement of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) based on political mono-vision; the only criteria they use to evaluate candidates is their voting record on gun issues. Their selection of whom to endorse and which campaigns NRA member dollars enrich is based on only one issue - guns.

Single-issue politics is wrong.

The majority of the NRA membership base is conservative. Harry Reid is their arch-enemy. Regardless of which side of the aisle you are most drawn to, this is a kick in the teeth for NRA members. The NRA is thinking of biting the hand that feeds it and using an excuse of one-issue politics.

Tough Decisions

Experience and character are required to make difficult choices. Politics in 2010 presents nothing but tough decisions. There is no option out there that will provide a rosy reality for everyone.

One-issue politics requires no experience and no character. A light switch is either 'On' or 'Off.' Not too tough a call there. A computer binary system identifies everything as either a '0' or '1.' No judgment needed there. I'm not sure the binary system even qualifies as 'artificial intelligence.'

Who Wins Here?

• Politician "A" voted 100% pro-guns; is pro-choice; a self-avowed Marxist; and wants to raise the highest income tax bracket to 95%.
• Politician "B" voted 90% pro-guns; is pro-choice; a self-avowed socialist; and thinks that no one in the city limits of a town larger than 5,000 should own a pet.
• Politician "C" voted 80% pro-guns; is pro-life; a self-avowed Christian; and thinks that Americans pay enough taxes already.
• Politician "D" voted 50% pro-guns; is pro-life; is an atheist; and believes in a flat tax.

Which of these politicians should the NRA choose to endorse? According to their one-issue formula there is no discussion required: Politician "A".

Horse Show Judges Make More Complex Decisions

Every applicant for a judging card doesn't get one. There are standards to be met. One is the ability to make tough choices backed up by reason. The following scenario is real. Again, who wins?

When judging a Western Pleasure class:

• Exhibitor "A' failed to do the gaits required.
• Exhibitor "B" almost got bucked off but did all the elements of the class.
• Exhibitor "C" did the elements, but had to pull on the reins with all their might as their horse ran off with them.

So, which exhibitor wins the class? One who is given the responsibility of judging or evaluating is expected to apply knowledge, character, truth, and discretion to make the best choice among the options available. It seldom happens that a perfect choice exists among the possible, so a weighing of each flawed possibility must be made. A single-issue voter does not fully accept their responsibility to be discerning before voting.

Single-issue voters are either lazy, fanatical, opportunistic, or ignorant. One of these will apply to any who endorse a candidate or cast a vote based upon only one issue and nothing more.

What is the Christian Viewpoint?

How should a Christian look at their responsibility as a voting citizen? Some Christians say that their votes must agree with scripture. However, when selecting a person who job will be to represent an electorate, will such a simple formula work? No.

Human beings are contradictory. Has there ever been the perfect Christian candidate? I can't name one. So, what is the person who strives to be faithful to his or her walk with Jesus Christ to do?

The method for selecting candidates is the same one used to study the Bible:

• Be informed.
• Research the topic.
• Recognize context.
• Examine the issue from different sides.
• Discuss the point with others whom you trust.
• Use discernment to reach your decision.

Contradictions in the Bible

When taken verse by verse the Bible seems to contradict itself. More mature Christians know that the Bible is a complete work and to cherry-pick one verse or another usually drops you into the land of error.

No serious Christian will select one Bible verse and make it the sole foundation of their faith. No worthy voter will select one issue and use it as the only factor in choosing a candidate.

Voters who bind themselves by invisible chains to single-issue candidates are fanatics, ignorant, lazy, or accept being used by opportunists. No sturdy 'platform' will long stand upon a single leg. Balance may be achieved momentarily, but as soon as the weight distribution changes slightly, the platform topples and all who stand on it will be dashed on the rocks below.

Who Really Selects Presidential Candidates?

Like it or not, the Presidential Candidate selection process or picking who might be our next President of the United States of America might not be the true selections of the majority of, "We People of the United States of America."

You see, first of all those candidates are or have been holders of some Governmental Office before it is decided that they should seek election for the job of President of the United States of America. Yes, there are exceptions to that statement, but those exceptions are people who have enough money to finance most of their campaign costs. So there you are.

The King Makers or the leaders of the two major Political Parties select the most electable people to become the next President of the United States of America. So too, some of those people can also be people who are military heroes who are also members of the Political Party in question. So there you have it.

This election year is no different. Those Political Party leaders, together with the support of big money people pick the group of people that will seek election for the job of President of the United States of America. Yes, you can also vote for your personal preference by simply writing in your choice on the ballot.

Guess what? Something is clearly wrong with the above selection process. Believe it or not, the majority has little to say about who should seek election to that most important Governmental Office. Only after that process is completed do "We People" get to vote for whoever will be the next President of the United States of America.

Many people are truly unhappy about those selections and it seems that yet again "We People" are again faced with voting for the hand picked candidates of big money and Political Party Leadership. So too, "We People" will also be voting for the Political Party Platform of whichever Political Party that the Majority of "We People" support.

That Political Party Platform is a list of the issues that the majority of "We People" want to fix, in order to be as safe and healthy as possible. So now the question to answer is: You you really support the Political Party Platform of the person who you support? If your answer is no, well, you better take a good look at those candidates from the other Political Parties before you cast your vote for the next President of the United States of America.

As for me, I'll support any person who is willing to stop illegal immigration, stop the sale and importation of deadly, addictive and illegal drugs, put an end to violent street gangs, make our Country a "Green Friendly Nation," provide more jobs to the people and remove illegal aliens for our Country. Who will you vote for in 2008?

The Selecting of the Political Leader in Cambodia

Though its present image does not draw great impression from the regional and international audiences, Cambodia, to me, is one of the world's states that many other states can learn from.

Its journeys across almost every stage of political regimes, prosperous history and stigmatized present day and other political spiral that won over the forecasting power of Henry Kissinger, Advisor to the American President Richard Nixon, has made the current politics of Cambodia a trauma one, or I would call a "leprosy subject" in the universities.

What are the motives of Cambodia's sluggish development? Are Cambodian leaders thinking independently and in sovereignty? Are current leaders really caring about people's interests? Are those leaders boasting the genuine leadership faculty? These are the questions that make the selection of the political leader a very hard subject in the Cambodian society.

Selections of the political leader in Cambodia, to those who have informative mind, prove a very difficult one. So what are the reasons behind their hard selection? Its sometimes-vertical and sometimes-horizontal political atmospheres and its unstable spiral in economy have been the eminent homework that makes us difficulty in fulfilling our job of selecting our leader. However, there are much more factors that are contributing to our head age.

With all the above evils, selecting the political leader in Cambodia is not to opt out "from the best of the best", but pick the one who has committed the lest crimes; nationally and internationally, publicly and individually.

Political Accountability in Scotland

"The citizen can bring our political and governmental institutions back to life, make them responsive and accountable, and keep them honest. No one else can." -- John Gardner

There are two main factors in politics: the politicians and the people. To understand what is right and, more importantly, what is wrong with politics these two areas must be addressed. To ensure politicians are answerable they must be properly elected by the people. When they make a decision, it must be made on behalf of those that have chosen them as their representative. To ensure politicians are effective, they themselves must be exactly the right type of candidate. They should be in the job for everyone but themselves. By reforming both the means by which politicians are selected and the process by which they are elected, Scotland can look forward to a bright political future.

"Politics would be a helluva good business if it weren't for the goddamned people." -- Richard M. Nixon

Ask anybody what they think of a politician and the answer will be the same. Fairly or unfairly, the MPs expenses scandal at Westminster has had an impact on the public's opinion of politicians like nothing before. The expenses scandal showed just how out of touch with the public politicians have become.

The actions of senior politicians were in stark contrast to their words. Promising comprehensive reform, they instead ousted a slightly old-fashioned speaker and decreed that Westminster expenses would be externally regulated. While the Holyrood expenses system is actually regarded as being very efficient, political accountability in Scotland comes from Westminster as well and so the lessons to be learned there are just as vital.

So how to tackle the problem of out of touch politicians? To begin with, a fresh input of politicians is essential.

Politicians are elected as a representation of public opinion. As opinions change with time, so should MPs. Local party members only should be allowed to approve the candidate(s)(in the case of Scottish Parliament) that will stand at election time. The candidate will come from a list of those wishing to stand and the local party members will pick who they feel is best for the community. Being the standing MP/MSP does not guarantee that you will stand automatically as a candidate next time round. The incumbent politician will be judged by the local party members on whether he/she has delivered promises and worked to a satisfactory level. If this were to happen at the next election, those heavily involved in the expenses scandal who still wish to stand would probably not get another chance.

Prospective candidates would be assessed on a variety of factors. For instance, those who have had worthwhile experience in another job that may improve their ability to work as a politician will be looked upon favourably as opposed to those with impressive degrees. Vince Cable is highly respected for his foresight in relation to the economy. His CV includes a stint as Chief Economist at Shell. It is easy to say that more young people should be involved in politics, but a bit of experience goes a long way in the eyes of the electorate. This selection process would also put to an end the increasing trend of 'career politicians' who step out of education in to the lower rungs of the political system, seeking to work their way up. How can someone whose only experience of international politics is from a textbook make an informed decision on an issue the size of, for example, the Iraq War?

Lastly, people want their politicians to have strong principles and morals. This does not include seeing them comment on topics favoured by the popular media, using tragic events as a means of political point-scoring and becoming involved in reality TV. Furthermore, being a politician is a job. Does a doctor or a lawyer have another job? Those who have a second job cannot be expected to perform at a level that justifies their salary as a politician.

None of these ideas are revolutionary (that comes in the next chapter), just common sense. I believe these changes would benefit a political system that has actually made some impressive strides in recent years. With a new system of selection in place and by taking on some simple advice, politicians can return to the position of high public standing that they once held.

"Turnout is low - there is something sick in the heart of our politics." -- Paddy Ashdown

If the past is a sign of things to come the prospects don't look encouraging for a high turnout in the 2011 Scottish Parliament election.

Since 1987, turnout in Scotland has been consistently lower than that of the UK as a whole in general elections. 2001 was a particularly telling year with Scottish turnout at an alarming 58.2%, the lowest since 1918 when many servicemen were still fighting in the war. The five UK constituencies with the lowest turnout in 2001, even more worryingly, all came from Glasgow.

However, the turnout figures for the Scottish Parliament do not provide good reading either. Introduced in 1999, the Scottish Parliament was meant to provide the Scottish people with their own representatives and there was a lot of optimism about this new parliament. Yet turnout was just 58.16%. In 2003 this fell, embarrassingly and depressingly, to below 50% and there was only a slight increase in the most recent elections in 2007.

It is frustrating that we have a new Parliament that is being elected by less than half the electorate and this must be tackled. When the idea of a Scottish Parliament was devised those behind it were clearly thinking of a different electoral system and so Proportional Representation was chosen. However, as with any electoral system, be it First Past the Post or otherwise, there are numerous pros and cons. But there is a way to better representation, to better politics, without changing the system. For the following reasons, I honestly believe in the value of compulsory voting.

Voting is a right and with right comes responsibility. If you've got the right to vote, you've got the responsibility to use that power. Compulsory voting would show the public that politicians trust them to make an informed decision and would not need to revert to protest voting. Incidentally, the most damaging of all protest votes, the 'no-vote', would disappear completely. Established countries such as Australia and Belgium both use the system and report turnout of over 90%.

Compulsory voting would get politicians being more open about the big issues. In return for their vote, the electorate will want concrete answers on the tough issues. Those in Glasgow who feel their vote serves no purpose will become increasingly aware that the things in life that seem as though they cannot be changed, can actually be influenced.

A final benefit of this system would be that of its impact on the electorate. At present, it appears the majority of people are apolitical. From personal experience I know almost nobody my age, 17 and able to vote next year, who knows the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the country's third party. If people know that they are going to be voting (non-attendees receive a fine and possible imprisonment if they refuse to pay their fines - as punishment for failing to pay rather than not voting) they will almost certainly pick up some interest in politics. And for those who really disagree or believe compulsory voting is undemocratic, there is always the 'none of the above' option. One of the biggest reasons for the decrease in turnout has been a loss of faith in politicians. Compulsory voting allows voters to register dissatisfaction with those standing for election, as opposed to the democratic process itself.

Compulsory voting would be the perfect opportunity for this SNP government to be brave and prove Scotland's independent credentials. Only a strong country, financially and morally, can make great changes. In the early 20th century, the British government took some brave steps towards improving the country, giving men and women over a certain age the right to vote. Compulsory voting opens up the vote to the electorate in a similar way to what happened in 1928, which made politicians more accountable than ever. As a new decade begins, I strongly believe the Scottish government can take another brave step towards improving the country and make politicians even more accountable.

"Ideas are great arrows, but there has to be a bow. And politics is the bow of idealism." -- Bill Moyers

By making changes to the processes of selection and election, a path can be paved to a better political future for Scotland. Both changes would make politicians more answerable and effective, make the public more involved with the decisions that affect their lives and elevate politics beyond personality and point scoring. So I hand it over to you, politicians. After all, you can't ask the architect to build the house.

Privacy Policy

Privacy Policy for http://politicalselections.blogspot.com/

If you require any more information or have any questions about our privacy policy, please feel free to contact us by email at mariyuana.yuana@gmail.com.

At http://politicalselections.blogspot.com/, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us. This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by http://politicalselections.blogspot.com/ and how it is used.

Log Files
Like many other Web sites, http://politicalselections.blogspot.com/ makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol ( IP ) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider ( ISP ), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user’s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.

Cookies and Web Beacons
http://politicalselections.blogspot.com/ does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.

DoubleClick DART Cookie
.:: Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on http://politicalselections.blogspot.com/.
.:: Google's use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to http://politicalselections.blogspot.com/ and other sites on the Internet.
.:: Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html

Some of our advertising partners may use cookies and web beacons on our site. Our advertising partners include ....
Google Adsense


These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on http://politicalselections.blogspot.com/ send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.

http://politicalselections.blogspot.com/ has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.

You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. http://politicalselections.blogspot.com/'s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.

If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browsers' respective websites.