The election process in the United States has begun to feel like a bad joke. We like to talk about how great our "democracy" is, how it's for the people, and how each voice matters, but it all feels a bit like a scam. From people not being able to vote at all, to the scandal of closed primaries, it starts to look like an elaborate game that was set up to win by the people who started out with the best cards or the most money.

According to a recent Reuters poll, approximately half of Americans think the presidential nominating system is rigged. The use of delegates to override popular vote seems undemocratic to many, and it's hard to trust that it's being handled fairly. The use of superdelegates in the Democratic party seems especially undemocratic, making it feel almost totally pointless to vote in a primary election.

Closed primaries are one of the worst parts of the whole process. Is it really fair to block millions of unaffiliated citizens from voting? Should parties have that much power? I understand that the primary elections are to decide who will be a party's candidate for president, but I don't believe that any citizen of this country should be barred from voting for someone because of lack of party affiliation. Many voters in New York recently claimed that their party affiliation had mysteriously been switched to "unaffiliated" or "independent" without their knowledge or consent, making it impossible for them to vote. It seems ridiculous to me that allegiance to one of the two major parties gets to determine whether or not you are allowed to do one of the most iconically democratic acts of this country which everyone loves to preach about.

It seems that most agree that our election system is quite broken, if not awfully corrupt. This is not a particularly new argument either. I think we should either get rid of closed primaries and the use of delegates, or throw away the whole party system altogether. It isn't fair, it isn't democratic, and it is too easy to give money and power the loudest voice. If nothing is done to change the process, we should at the very least give up on this pretense that we live in any kind of real democracy, the term that so many in this country love to tout.

Jose Vera's post about immigration is an interesting one for me as it is something I've been learning more about lately, and of course always a controversial issue. I believe his points are true; immigrants contribute so much to our country (as well as many others) that we would not be what we are today, nor would we do so well without them. Obviously, unless you are a Native American, you are here because of immigration. All of our families were immigrants at one point (willfully or not). We are a nation of immigrants. Why do so many now say "keep immigrants out" or "go back to where you came from"?

Unfortunately I believe a lot of this attitude has to do with (sometimes) unadmitted racism. People are moving in that don't look just like me? I don't trust em! This started in 1882 with the Chinese Exclusion Act which banned all Chinese immigrants, mostly just because they were suspicious of their different appearance and language. Not long after, in 1894, we have the founding of the Immigration Restriction League which used the not-so-scientific belief in eugenics (later used by Nazis) to classify other Europeans into different "races", label anyone not of northern European descent inferior, and try to prevent any unsavories from entering the country. Sadly today, many of the anti-immigrant arguments I hear seem like thinly veiled and poorly justified versions of the same ones being touted over 100 years ago.

A current example would be the obvious, Donald Trump. He wants to deport all 11 million illegal immigrants and has a hostile attitude toward immigrants in general, despite the fact that his current wife was a Slovenian immigrant. This Bloomberg article gives many good examples of the negative consequences the deportation of immigrants would have on our economy, including the fact that they have contributed $13 billion to the Social Security Fund.

The recent passing of a law in North Carolina banning local anti-discrimination laws has begun to worry some that we will see similar bills popping up around the country. The bill, HB2, forces transgender individuals to use the bathroom designated to their biological sex at birth in public schools and universities, as well as prohibiting individual cities from raising their minimum wage, among other impositions that seem completely unnecessary and contrary to republican's usual championing of local authorities. This happened after Charlotte passed legislation prohibiting discrimination of trans people.

Last month a similar bill was vetoed in South Dakota by its republican governor, stating that the bill "does not address any pressing issue concerning the school districts of South Dakota" and that such rare cases were best left to local school officials. Other similar bills have popped up here and there, including in Houston, and another similar bill has just been introduced in Illinois. It seem that these republicans have an image in their minds of a trans person being an inherently perverted man in a dress getting a kick out of peeping at women in restrooms. Likely though, they have used a restroom with a trans person before and not known it, and everything was okay and life went on. They don't seem to understand that this imagined discomfort of using the restroom with someone of the opposite sex is exactly what these bills will cause.

(Buck Angel, trans male porn star and activist)

Aside from all of the obvious logical fallacies in the supporting arguments for these bills, it is in violation of Title IX, a law which states: "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

In case that isn't clear enough, in 2014, the Department of Education released a memo which towards the end stated: "All students, including transgender students and students who do not conform to sex stereotypes, are protected from sex-based discrimination under Title IX."

(Michael Hughes, born female, doesn't think he belongs in a women's restroom. Do you?)

In this case, Federal Government trumps State Government. State governments should not have the right to decide who they can discriminate against, especially when such laws as Title IX already exist. The Federal Government should be able to nullify any anti-anti-discrimination laws, and perhaps state legislators should educate themselves about the people their laws actually affect. Discrimination towards any group of people should not be acceptable anywhere in this country.

There's a short article published yesterday on The Huffington Post by Richard Brodsky, called "Trump: Sometimes Wrong, Sometimes Right" , that makes the argument that Trump sometimes makes some sense. He points out that much of what Trump says, in regards to immigrants, torture, etc. is inexcusable, but attempts to explain briefly why he still has the support he does.

The article is clearly written for people who don't like Trump and he doesn't seem to be a supporter himself. But he's able to explain some of the reasons for support in a non-enraging way. He says to "Listen to Trump on the loss of manufacturing jobs. On the impact of trade deals. On drug prices and how we don't competitively bid them." And that, "He's right about what's happened to a broad swath of our countrymen and women." His observances make it a little easier to get in the heads of people who truly believe Trump wants to "make America great again".

While I understand the optimistic view that maybe this will at least create a debate about these issues, I remain unconvinced that Trump is the right one to do it, not to mention that he's not even the only candidate talking about issues concerning the working and middle class. It's nice that he's said a couple good things and all, but it still only feels like he's simply figured out what a certain demographic wants to hear. There doesn't seem to be much thought behind his or his supporter's emotional rants, and I don't think Brodsky disagrees. The point of the article seems to be something like, "This guy is pretty awful but he's managed to tap into something that ignites a fire in many and should probably be looked at more closely." I guess in that context, I can't argue. But it doesn't diminish the embarrassing and bigoted elements of the theatrical circus that is the Trump campaign, and that may be the one thing most democrats and republicans alike can agree on right now.

In an article in the New York Times called "Why Sexism at the Office Makes Women Love Hillary Clinton", Jill Filipovic argues that older women who have had more experience with sexism, and different experiences than younger generations, are more likely to support Hillary Clinton. She says that women can relate to her when they see a qualified female candidate contested by what they feel is a less qualified male candidate, as it mirrors their work experiences.

Her target audience seems to be women in general, but seems to try to be persuasive to younger women who might be Sanders supporters. She lays out some statistics about the wage gap and gives personal experiences of her own growing up, graduating college and joining the workforce, and increasing exposure to discrimination. She compares people who claim they want to see a woman in the White House, just not Hillary, to discriminatory hiring practices who turn down qualified women.

Filipovic does provide lots of sources to back up her factual claims, although none of her claims are unbelievable or necessarily new ideas. The problem I have with her overall argument is that it is basically saying we should probably vote for Hillary because it would be some kind of feminist victory. That'll show all those men who talked over us at work! All of her talk about gender inequality in the workplace doesn't seem to me to be a valid enough argument to vote for someone simply because she's a woman. Gender inequality and the pay gap aren't unimportant issues but there are so many other issues just as important that I'm skeptical about Hillary's position on, and Filipovic seems to ignore all those other issues.

While the idea of a female president and an overall better place for women is certainly appealing, I think this particular argument is a bit short-sighted. I too would love to see a woman in the White House but gender is not the most important aspect of a presidential candidate and it seems sexist to suggest that.

Should the argument of state's rights along with the coal industry get in the way of legislation which many believe would lead to a greater good? As detailed in this recent article in The New York Times, that seems to be exactly what is happening.

President Obama had introduced a regulation to require states to cut back on greenhouse gases. The regulation was part of a U.N. pact on climate change which happened in December. At the urging of 27 states, the Supreme Court temporarily put a halt on the proceedings. According to the article, "the Supreme Court had never before granted a request to halt a regulation before review by a federal appeals court."

This article is a good modern example of some of the topics we've been learning about, including the role of the Supreme Court and state's rights. The decision was made 5-4, with all of the conservative justices supporting the halt and all of the liberal justices against the halt. It seems to be a somewhat historic decision, although short-sighted. The short-term financial interests are impeding long-term environmental interests, as usual.

Hello everyone!