How do the actors relate to one another in power? Are they similar? Is one actor significantly more powerful than another? Do they have different kinds of power within the situation?
The power in the Supreme Court is an interesting subject because, on the surface, it looks like each of the Supreme Court Justices have the same amount of power. Each Justice gets a single vote, and that vote is weighted equally to each of the other Justices. Even Chief Justice Roberts has only one vote, and it isn't worth any more or any less than any of the other Associate Justices. A decision is made by a simple majority vote (at least 5-4).
However, other influences should also be taken into consideration. For example, after the vote is taken, the Justices are able to create an argument for their side and present it to the opposing side, and the senior Justice (the one with more time in the Supreme Court) on each side chooses who will write the argument. This argument can be presented over a maximum of 30 minutes, and following the debate, the vote is taken again. This means that each Justice has an influencing factor on the rest, and a few Justices (namely, the newer ones) might be more readily influenced in their judgments by other Justices (namely, the ones with greater seniority).
From this, we can see that Justices with greater seniority tend to have a greater influence than ones of a lesser seniority. Although this argument does not stand in all cases, it is generally the case that newer Justices will be the ones to shift their vote after hearing the argument for a specific case (for my prediction, the Healthcare Reform laws passed last year).
I broke down the power of each actor into three categories; money, power of legislation, and power of coercion. Furthermore, support of the people is key to the power of each actor. Legitimacy doesn't necessarily reside solely with the governments included. A cartel may gain legitimacy within a certain region through supporting or protecting the people in that region.
The author has significantly more power than either the publisher or the readers because she can decide to stop the whole process. The publisher can give her the go-ahead, but she gets to ultimately decide if and when she is willing to write.
The readers have a great deal of power of each of the other actors, because a book doesn't sell if there aren't readers to buy it. The publisher won't even look at another book if there isn't a strong readership lined up to promote it. They also have a good amount of power over what sort of item might be written because both the author and publisher will want to cater to the fan base.
Congress has legislative power, the president has veto power, the American people have the power of votes, and the insurance companies/lobbyists have power over influencing decision and legislation.
Overall, Congress may the most powerful in this situation. They're the body that actually controls making and passing legislation. Lobbyists are also very powerful because they influence the decisions being made. The American people should be powerful, but they're disorganized and many aren't engaged at all, so their power is wasted.
Generally speaking, the actors in my project have similar *types* of power - public speaking/media manipulation, fundraising, preexisting bases of popular support, grants of endorsement, etc... but they have varying levels of power, within those shared types.
Sarah Palin is (arguably) a better public speaker than someone like Mitch Daniels or Mitt Romney (though the particular standards for assessing that particular quality are debatable). Ron Paul has a smaller base of popular support than Romney or Palin, but raised $5 million in a single day in the 2008 GOP primary. Newt Gingrich has a firm handle on media interaction, whereas Palin is still prone to gaffes and petulance in the face of hostile questioning.
This was the question I had the most trouble with when I was writing my draft. I think my actors all have relatively similar types of power, but some have more of that power than others. President Obama has power that comes from being a household name and from being the incumbant, but this could also be a deterrent in the sense that he is already disliked by a lot of Americans. Whereas his Republican opponent will likely be lesser known, but may have the ability to win over those Americans who have lost faith in Obama. The actors with the most power are the American people as a whole, because they will ultimately determine the outcome of the election.
For my prediction there is no one player that holds significant power over any others. Since the government of New Mexico is based upon the United States government, checks and balances prevent any one player from gaining too much power. However, it is possible for several actors to join forces and create a majority, gaining a type of power over the others. This is where it is important to consider the political parties/motivations of each actor.
The National Democratic Party has held the majority of the power for the past few decades. However, with the "resignation" of Mubarak they probably won't be as strong. The Egyptian protesters are demanding change,which the party is trying to achieve by reforming their platform to gain back strength.
The military currently holds the power in the government. They plan to hand that power over within 6 months or until the next elections, though.
The other political parties and opposition movements had played a minor part in past elections, but with the fall of NDP's party leader a new party may rise above. It may take coalitions from different organizations to gain enough power.
Last, the public, being the voters, have the most influential power. The parties will try to meet the current demands of the people, and supposedly whoever does the best should gain the victory. That is if everything goes according to plan...
The United States has the established power of the status quo behind it. The consumption power of the United States also indirectly forces nations to keep dollar reserves in order to maintain favorable exchange rates and balances of trade. The United Kingdom, France, and Germany hold significant political/economic power in keeping the European Union together. The European Union holds power as an economic bloc that could economically influence other parts of the world. Russia holds influence as a political player and trade partner with China and the EU. Japan and China enjoy power as large holders of dollar reserves and as major exporters. The IMF is an influential actor in shaping international opinion, but is limited in directly changing the monetary market. The major central banks hold significant power over the situation because they are, in part, the major decision makers on whether the dollar will remain the world reserve currency.
The power of the different actors would probably be court with most power, but I'm not really sure how I am going to handle their position on the matter. Then it would be Obama administration next. Then the various interest groups, whether medical field, pro or anti research group, and the like will all have similar power, with slight variance for how well connected each of these groups are.
The Dominican Government has the power to enforce the constitution. The people have the power to revolt against their government. Domestic human rights organizations have the power of awareness and of broadcasting the issue and solutions to the people and in turn abroad. International human rights organizations have the power to challenge the dominican government and assist domestic human rights organization. Other states(Countries) have the power to shame, humiliate, and punish the Dominican Republic publicly.
The actors’ amounts of relative power vary greatly. The Obama Administration has the most power because Obama is the commander-in-chief of the U.S. military and at the end of the day all the troops in Afghanistan follow his orders, not the orders of Congress or the Afghan Government. The Congress has the second greatest amount of power because it has control over the federal budget and the President can be bent to the will of Congress because he needs their cooperation if he wants to put through other legislation and get it through Congress and back to his desk. The Afghan government, although worth being considered, has the least amount of power; if the Afghan Government wants the U.S. out of the country it can simply kick the U.S. troops out. This would be unwise though because despite some resentment towards the U.S. military’s presence in Afghanistan, the Afghan Government still needs the U.S.’ assistance if it wants to continue to grow more and more stable and powerful. Thus the Afghan Government would be unwise to give U.S. troops the boot and forsake all U.S. assistance, which is a possibility if we no longer have troops in the country. The insurgent forces have a moderate amount of power because if they stop their attacks then the U.S. would feel a lot safer leaving Afghanistan in the hands of the Afghan people and pulling the U.S. military out of the country.
The ultimate power of decision lies with the nine Supreme Court Justices. The conservative bloc has slightly more power than the liberal bloc due to the 4-3 ratio of their 'membership'. Of the two swing-vote Justices, Justice Kennedy has more power due to the fact that he has been on the Supreme Court for a lot longer than Justice Kagan, who is the newest and youngest member. However, both of them have less power than the blocs due to the fact that they are, of course, one person, but they still have some weight because their decisions will likely be the ones that make the final decision.
Governor Brewer and President Obama will have most of the power prior to this reaching the Supreme Court, but this will pretty much evaporate once it gets there.
The power in the Supreme Court is an interesting subject because, on the surface, it looks like each of the Supreme Court Justices have the same amount of power. Each Justice gets a single vote, and that vote is weighted equally to each of the other Justices. Even Chief Justice Roberts has only one vote, and it isn't worth any more or any less than any of the other Associate Justices. A decision is made by a simple majority vote (at least 5-4).
ReplyDeleteHowever, other influences should also be taken into consideration. For example, after the vote is taken, the Justices are able to create an argument for their side and present it to the opposing side, and the senior Justice (the one with more time in the Supreme Court) on each side chooses who will write the argument. This argument can be presented over a maximum of 30 minutes, and following the debate, the vote is taken again. This means that each Justice has an influencing factor on the rest, and a few Justices (namely, the newer ones) might be more readily influenced in their judgments by other Justices (namely, the ones with greater seniority).
From this, we can see that Justices with greater seniority tend to have a greater influence than ones of a lesser seniority. Although this argument does not stand in all cases, it is generally the case that newer Justices will be the ones to shift their vote after hearing the argument for a specific case (for my prediction, the Healthcare Reform laws passed last year).
I broke down the power of each actor into three categories; money, power of legislation, and power of coercion. Furthermore, support of the people is key to the power of each actor. Legitimacy doesn't necessarily reside solely with the governments included. A cartel may gain legitimacy within a certain region through supporting or protecting the people in that region.
ReplyDeleteThe author has significantly more power than either the publisher or the readers because she can decide to stop the whole process. The publisher can give her the go-ahead, but she gets to ultimately decide if and when she is willing to write.
ReplyDeleteThe readers have a great deal of power of each of the other actors, because a book doesn't sell if there aren't readers to buy it. The publisher won't even look at another book if there isn't a strong readership lined up to promote it. They also have a good amount of power over what sort of item might be written because both the author and publisher will want to cater to the fan base.
Congress has legislative power, the president has veto power, the American people have the power of votes, and the insurance companies/lobbyists have power over influencing decision and legislation.
ReplyDeleteOverall, Congress may the most powerful in this situation. They're the body that actually controls making and passing legislation. Lobbyists are also very powerful because they influence the decisions being made. The American people should be powerful, but they're disorganized and many aren't engaged at all, so their power is wasted.
Generally speaking, the actors in my project have similar *types* of power - public speaking/media manipulation, fundraising, preexisting bases of popular support, grants of endorsement, etc... but they have varying levels of power, within those shared types.
ReplyDeleteSarah Palin is (arguably) a better public speaker than someone like Mitch Daniels or Mitt Romney (though the particular standards for assessing that particular quality are debatable). Ron Paul has a smaller base of popular support than Romney or Palin, but raised $5 million in a single day in the 2008 GOP primary. Newt Gingrich has a firm handle on media interaction, whereas Palin is still prone to gaffes and petulance in the face of hostile questioning.
This was the question I had the most trouble with when I was writing my draft.
ReplyDeleteI think my actors all have relatively similar types of power, but some have more of that power than others.
President Obama has power that comes from being a household name and from being the incumbant, but this could also be a deterrent in the sense that he is already disliked by a lot of Americans. Whereas his Republican opponent will likely be lesser known, but may have the ability to win over those Americans who have lost faith in Obama.
The actors with the most power are the American people as a whole, because they will ultimately determine the outcome of the election.
I think I need a lot of help with this...
For my prediction there is no one player that holds significant power over any others. Since the government of New Mexico is based upon the United States government, checks and balances prevent any one player from gaining too much power. However, it is possible for several actors to join forces and create a majority, gaining a type of power over the others. This is where it is important to consider the political parties/motivations of each actor.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe National Democratic Party has held the majority of the power for the past few decades. However, with the "resignation" of Mubarak they probably won't be as strong. The Egyptian protesters are demanding change,which the party is trying to achieve by reforming their platform to gain back strength.
ReplyDeleteThe military currently holds the power in the government. They plan to hand that power over within 6 months or until the next elections, though.
The other political parties and opposition movements had played a minor part in past elections, but with the fall of NDP's party leader a new party may rise above. It may take coalitions from different organizations to gain enough power.
Last, the public, being the voters, have the most influential power. The parties will try to meet the current demands of the people, and supposedly whoever does the best should gain the victory. That is if everything goes according to plan...
The United States has the established power of the status quo behind it. The consumption power of the United States also indirectly forces nations to keep dollar reserves in order to maintain favorable exchange rates and balances of trade. The United Kingdom, France, and Germany hold significant political/economic power in keeping the European Union together. The European Union holds power as an economic bloc that could economically influence other parts of the world. Russia holds influence as a political player and trade partner with China and the EU. Japan and China enjoy power as large holders of dollar reserves and as major exporters. The IMF is an influential actor in shaping international opinion, but is limited in directly changing the monetary market. The major central banks hold significant power over the situation because they are, in part, the major decision makers on whether the dollar will remain the world reserve currency.
ReplyDeleteThe power of the different actors would probably be court with most power, but I'm not really sure how I am going to handle their position on the matter. Then it would be Obama administration next. Then the various interest groups, whether medical field, pro or anti research group, and the like will all have similar power, with slight variance for how well connected each of these groups are.
ReplyDeleteThe Dominican Government has the power to enforce the constitution. The people have the power to revolt against their government. Domestic human rights organizations have the power of awareness and of broadcasting the issue and solutions to the people and in turn abroad. International human rights organizations have the power to challenge the dominican government and assist domestic human rights organization. Other states(Countries) have the power to shame, humiliate, and punish the Dominican Republic publicly.
ReplyDeleteThe actors’ amounts of relative power vary greatly. The Obama Administration has the most power because Obama is the commander-in-chief of the U.S. military and at the end of the day all the troops in Afghanistan follow his orders, not the orders of Congress or the Afghan Government. The Congress has the second greatest amount of power because it has control over the federal budget and the President can be bent to the will of Congress because he needs their cooperation if he wants to put through other legislation and get it through Congress and back to his desk. The Afghan government, although worth being considered, has the least amount of power; if the Afghan Government wants the U.S. out of the country it can simply kick the U.S. troops out. This would be unwise though because despite some resentment towards the U.S. military’s presence in Afghanistan, the Afghan Government still needs the U.S.’ assistance if it wants to continue to grow more and more stable and powerful. Thus the Afghan Government would be unwise to give U.S. troops the boot and forsake all U.S. assistance, which is a possibility if we no longer have troops in the country. The insurgent forces have a moderate amount of power because if they stop their attacks then the U.S. would feel a lot safer leaving Afghanistan in the hands of the Afghan people and pulling the U.S. military out of the country.
ReplyDeleteThe ultimate power of decision lies with the nine Supreme Court Justices. The conservative bloc has slightly more power than the liberal bloc due to the 4-3 ratio of their 'membership'. Of the two swing-vote Justices, Justice Kennedy has more power due to the fact that he has been on the Supreme Court for a lot longer than Justice Kagan, who is the newest and youngest member. However, both of them have less power than the blocs due to the fact that they are, of course, one person, but they still have some weight because their decisions will likely be the ones that make the final decision.
ReplyDeleteGovernor Brewer and President Obama will have most of the power prior to this reaching the Supreme Court, but this will pretty much evaporate once it gets there.