The Importance of Political Geography

     Geography plays a very strong role in the history of human existence from shaping the patterns that nomads followed, influencing troops movements and changing the outcome of war, to the manner in which politicians work for the votes of their constituency. What is on the surface of the planet and how we attribute meaning to it is intertwined and plays a large role in affecting the experiences of human existence. 

     In some respect there are certain nations in the world more powerful than others because they are geographically situated in such a manner so as to have access to better or more useful resources. For example a nation with access to major water routes or sea ports can have the much needed advantage of being able to ship and receive products by water. Nations that fall along more temperate climates and not within the extremes of the globe may be better suited to grow food and have an excess which can bolster a bigger, stronger, and more intelligent populace thus resulting in innovation and accomplishment which even furthers the nation more. 

     Aside from resources and agricultural benefits that some nations have over others there are also strategic military advantages to be had. Is it any coincidence that England had such widespread power and existed on an island isolated from the rest of the continent? Even during WWII Hitler couldn't take the grand victory he imagined because toppling the UK was not a simple task, he couldn't just march troops across their border, the English channel was in the way. The political aspects of geography are vitally important, any nation must recognize its own strengths and weaknesses as well as those of others if it wishes to succeed in its goals. 

War is a good thing?

     Before even discussing the pros and cons of war I believe it is necessary to recognize war as an inevitability, a by product of the animal nature of the human species. We have evolved in such a way so as to fill a unique ecological niche and have become a force of nature in our own right but humans are still just as animalistic as any other species. Nature is full of dominance and submissiveness, predator and prey relationships and the human species plays these out everyday, just in the manner in which we are capable of doing so.
     If we recognize that  humans are an animal species just like any other then we can recognize that combat, war, and plays of power are an inevitability of that nature. War and international conflict is the mechanism that drives and advances societies, a human world is not possible without it. Through war society collectively expresses what it sees as right and wrong and has a field on which to test that. Over centuries war has been the driving element behind the propagation of an ideology as it followed military campaigns and diffused into cultures.
     Despite the heavy loss of human life, the tremendous impact on an environment, and the myriad other seemingly negative aspects affiliated with war, the conflict is both necessary and good. War has been used to stop evil tyrants in their paths and save countless lives, in the US war has led to the creation of a military which is constantly leading the way in scientific and technological innovation all while providing invaluable disaster relief capabilities. Wars of the past have led to the creation of peace bringing supranationalistic organizations such as NATO and the UN too. War in general is the inevitable manifestation of animal conflict in the human species, and from it so much more good has come.

Terrorism: Does it work?

     Terrorism is obviously horrible dues to the sheer amount of suffering and destruction it causes. Still as a military tactic we must admit that it can be quite effective and this is exactly why its use is still so prevalent. Any group with a fringe ideology, that lacks voice and power, can make itself heard through the relative ease of the implementation of terrorism. Targeting civilians with violence or at the very least the threat of violence does alter  public opinion which has sway on political decision making as well as policy implementation.
     Nations such as the United States have espoused to have conducted a war on terrorism over the past few years, this however is not the case. As they should the United States politicians have targeted the strength of our military on those have perpetrated acts of terrorism against us. They haven't targeted or even really addressed all acts of terrorism past and present though. That would tarnish international relations with some key nations and would be counterproductive to the best interest of the United States and all its citizens here and abroad.
     Terrorism as an act is horrendous but isn't and never will be completely eradicated from the reserves of military tactics. Humans by their very nature establish ideas of binary opposition as a means to create a self identity, a sort of us verses them mentality. Because of this binary opposition there will always be groups who see themselves as better than others, however when these groups are militarily and politically weak they may resort to terrorism.

The Role of the United States

     The United States has taken a unique role upon itself as a form of global security force ensuring peace and democracy for everyone. As this self-made police force the US has altered governments, impacted the way people are governed and monitored transitions of power. It has acted in an almost neo-colonial manner by making assumptions about what is best for the peoples of several foreign nations.
     Beyond even the militaristic aspect of the spread of the United States is the cultural, business, and industrial forms of this neo-colonialism. McDonalds has spread wide and far and so have many other "staples" of American society. Some do say that our culture is one of degradation and immorality and for this reason our spread or role should be diminished. Others have anti-western sentiments for various reasons and also don't want to see the influence of the US present in their homeland.
     Even beyond the issue of the what is being spread is the idea that something is spreading at all. Some feel that the US should mind its own business and and stay out of the affairs of other nations. We should focus more internally and reduce our regular interactions on the rest of the globe. I myself am not sure where I stand on the issue of US involvement in the world but I do know I have an opinion on a case by case basis. Maybe a generalized blanket statement cannot be made about a countries global presence, whether or not it should have a greater role, that is hard say.
   

Colonialism

     It seems to me that the only justifications for colonialism can be found from the perspective of those who are doing it. Supporting it as good or necessary is simply ethnocentric and selfish and reflects a closed or limited mindset incapable of accepting another way of life as legitimate. Although the debate touched on some excellent points I must defer to the an excellent novel which portrays colonialism from the perspective of one colonized this can be found in Nervous Conditions.
     In Nervous Conditions the colonial white people have set up a mission in a nearby town and from its presence the seeds of destruction are sown. In the novel almost everyone exposed to the "Englishness" is impacted negatively in either a physical or mental manner. The presence of the mission begins to drain traditionalism and independence from the local peoples as it fractures families and alters worldviews.
     The semi-autobiographical novel is an excellent example of the impact of colonialism, societies should be allowed to have their independence in such a way that they are free from undesired outside influence. Even if this influence  may be to their benefit there can always be unseen side effects which cause just as much if not more harm than good.

The Electoral College: a flawed system

     Currently in the United States there exists a system for the election of the President called the Electoral College. This system was put in place by our founding fathers to create a point of balance between presidential election by Congress and presidential election by popular vote. Now when citizens of the 50 US states and Washington DC cast their votes for President and Vice-President they are actually voting for a set of electors who can cast their electoral votes in favor of a candidate, theoretically the candidate that wins the popular vote of a state should also win that states electoral votes.
     This system is heavily flawed though, a candidate only needs 270 electoral votes to win the Presidency and this creates a problem of representation. If a candidate can win only 12 states electoral votes (24% of the country) and the candidate wins each state by only a slight margin (reflecting the will of only 85 million people) the President of the United States could be determined by the will of only 27% of the US population. This is a legitimate and real danger of the Electoral College.
     The current system also seems to reduce voter turnout by drastically weakening the strength of a single vote. If a candidate only needs a slight majority to win a states electoral votes then any votes beyond that are superfluous. Furthermore, in several states the electors are not explicitly bound to cast their votes in line with the majority, a persons vote may not even matter in some cases.
     I strongly suggest that the Electoral College be replaced by a new and better thought out system. Presidential Candidates should be determined by a popular vote which represents the actual majority of the nations population. Their Vice-Presidents should be Representatives of the minority vote so that all voters are represented. Presidential candidates should not run on the same ticket with VP's, there should only be Presidential candidates. Between two candidates the majority vote determines the President and the other candidate becomes Vice-President.
    

Who Should Vote?

     I view government as an institution set by the people for the people so when the question of who should vote is asked I must quite simply answer, the people. Any and all persons within the physical borders of a state should be able to have their "voice" heard, many may have no idea how government works, several may be unable to speak English, this is irrelevant when discussing who should be allowed to vote. A presidential candidate must represent the majority will of a population for the sole purpose of popularity.
     If the President is popular he will enact whatever policies are best for the people as a whole, any politician will strive to appease whatever the will is of the majority of the population. If, for example, a majority percentage of the US population aren't citizens they must still be permitted to vote, their needs supersede that of any smaller group and must be met regardless of other factors.