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.  

Supra-nationalism: Good or Bad

The debate on supra-nationalism finds merit in both pros and cons, in it's current and evolving state of definition it can appear as both something worthy of support and attack. The points made on the side of those in pro resonate most with me given the great and far reaching benefits I see in supra-nationalistic organizations, namely with respect to war and economics. Sure those opposed say that supra-nationalism can lead to the loss of a national identity, it can allow failing states to bring others down, and even encroach on some necessity for regional sovereignty. What seems to be forgotten is that we are all simply creatures roaming on open lands with contrived borders and cultures. Supra-nationalism suppresses global conflict, it allows smaller nations to band together and have a voice, it provides for failing states so that the citizens within them won't suffer as a neglected populace. Supra-nationalism is a move towards a more cohesive global citizenry which places less emphasis on selfish and petty nationalist desires and instead focuses on ensuring peace and provision for everyone.

Supranationalism: The Modern Empire

I am trying to determine if supranationalism is a relatively new development in the history of man or if it is an old concept that has been influencing international relations for centuries. Obviously NATO and the Warsaw pact are prime examples of a very unique form of supranationalism which arose in the past century but they seem to me faint reflections of an even older idea. I'm thinking of empires, the Roman Empire for example. The Roman Empire was a multinational cohesive identity useful in deterring military aggression or ensuring greater economic security. There were smaller independent nations that identified with or allied with the Roman Empire, or they were "part" of the Roman Empire, and this afforded them an added level of security and prosperity, to a point. Quite similarly this seems to be the point of supranationalism in all its modern manifestations. Smaller independent nations can affiliate with a larger supranationalistic organization to ensure their security and prosperity. In a way supranationalism in the world today is similar to what an Empire used to be. Of course there is often an overlap between different "Empires" for example NATO and the British Commonwealth share many of the same members. Either way supranationalism is usually an excellent deterrent of military aggression as well as a promoter of economic stability.

This isn't always the case though and it seems supranationalism can actually instigate military action when it comes to smaller nations. If I were a small country for example and I was partnered in a military alliance with large powerful countries, I wouldn't be too reluctant goad my enemies. I could be a hardliner in negotiations, I wouldn't have to give into their demands, sure they may resort to military actions but that is alright, I have the US on my side. 

Getting Started

     I think it's amazing how our planets topography, climate, natural resources and more have played such an integral role in the tale of human existence. The idea that a country being flat, or mountainous, or surrounded by water can be the deciding factor for its eventual rise or fall. In the world today we see entire nations of people being affected due to the locations and amounts of a substance (oil) under particular swaths of land. Generally speaking the ideology is if the oil isn't under my swath then that has to be changed. The Human race is under the control of the planet and this hold it has over us now has been there and will be there for the long run. 

     As was outlined in Mackinders theory of "The Heartland" the geographical features of one particular region in Russia possibly make it the most important piece of land on the planet. This potential affected Nazi military strategies and eventually led to the creation of new nations, buffer nations to create space between Germany and this important geographical hot spot. 

     The hold our planet has on us also, very likely, impacted what we currently view as the dominant world religions. This can at least be seen in Africa in which the Northern Epi-Saharan regions are mostly Islamic by nature and the Sub-Saharan regions are not. This might imply that the Sahara desert is the reason all of Africa isn't Muslim, or for that matter Arab. Besides that vast void of dry wasteland  what other reason is there for the limits on Muslim expansion on the African continent?