Name: Danielle Guiteras
Year: Junior
Hometown: Doylestown, Pennsylvania
Major: Political Science and International Affairs
Her Campus (HC): What prompted you to major in Political Science?
Danielle Guiteras (DG): I started thinking about it in the eighth grade. I started watching a lot of war movies, and movies that are aimed more towards global affairs. Then I started to watch the news, and I began to realize that we have zero idea of what’s going on out there, and listening to word of mouth is not nearly enough to figure it out. I wanted to know everything and I felt like no one around me had answers for any of it, so naturally I figured I’d go to school for it!
HC: How is your perspective different than that of someone who isn’t majoring in Political Science?
DG: Most people who aren’t majoring in Political Science just know about the actual event and whatever’s covered on the news. I know theories and implications to make when I hear of those events, to possibly take from the past and see what it means for the future. It’s basically just interpretation of current events. Everyone hears them and has personal opinions, but when I hear them I think, “Okay, how’s this going to impact subject A, B and C?” “Has this happened before?” “Is this going to become a new trend?” It’s more like that bigger half of the iceberg that’s under the water.
HC: How did you feel about the build up to the 2016 Election?
DG: I was kind of disappointed that most of it was on social media, like Twitter and Facebook, because I don’t see those as really reliable sources for voters to turn to when making decisions like this. It started to make me think about how we need to find ways to validate those sources, if that’s going to be the way society turns.
HC: What did you think of the first Presidential Debate?
DG: I didn’t think there was anything presidential about it, honestly. I thought that they were acting like kids. Everything they said was pretty and it sounded smart and adult-like, but it was really just “he said, she said” and trying to make someone look like a loser. If they didn’t have people writing their answers for them, they probably would have sounded a lot more stupid. I didn’t feel like a lot of substance was happening. Every time they answered their questions they went on about their feelings but not about what they would actually plan on doing if something happened. There were no standards that they were being held to.
HC: If you could, what would you change about the debate or implement during the next debate?
DG: I would have representatives from both the Democrat and Republican Parties come up with the questions rather than a news station, because I really didn’t think the debate was unbiased at all.
HC: Is there anything you think people might fail to realize while watching the debates?
DG: I think people failed to realize that not many policies were actually talked about during the debate, and they didn’t really see how they are required to do their own research outside of the debates to figure out who they’re actually voting for.