Earlier this week, Cornell’s Survey Research Institute, along with CBS, UWIRE and the Chronicle of Higher Education, released a study examining Cornell students’ political views towards the upcoming election versus students residing in the swing states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina and Colorado. Six days before the election, the survey highlights the unique opinions of students, a demographic often ignored in political polls that rely on landline phone calls.

Students have historically had the lowest voter registration rates in the country. The survey shows that a higher percentage of Cornell students have registered to vote than students living in swing states, but a smaller percentage of Cornell students actually plan to vote.

Next Tuesday, America will elect the next president of the United States and new members of the 111th Congress. Perhaps more than ever scientific issues are at the forefront of the political battleground. The interaction of science and politics exists at all levels from the elementary classroom, to the university laboratory, to the halls of congress, to the oval office.

Cornell and its faculty have long made significant contributions to not only science but scientific policy as well. They have also seen their research affected by policy, and thus have a lot to say about this relationship — its past and present circumstances, and what the future may bring.

Nearly six years into a failing war and in the midst of the greatest economic crisis this country has faced in nearly a century, America needs an uncommon leader. After four years in the national spotlight, Sen. Barack Obama has proven himself to be that leader. It is for that reason that we endorse Obama’s candidacy for president of the United States.

Dear Sen. McCain,

As we approach what many will call the final stretch of an historic campaign, I would like to formally commend you for your valiant effort. You may be aware, as it is widely accepted, that I posses a significant lead in all polls, to be the next President of the United States. Now let us not get ahead of ourselves; the race is far from over. However, I believe that the American people are ready for change and that I will soon be elected President of the United States of America.

One of the things that have made this election especially interesting has been the extent to which it has been followed around the world. Even excluding Obama's and McCain’s international tours, worldwide expectations and interest are at an unusual high. This phenomenon can be traced to a variety of factors, but the events of the last eight years under President Bush probably lie at the core of foreign interest. International figures have made their endorsements, from the Mayor of London to Iranian officials, with even Al-Qaeda weighing in.

In this post, potential courses of action in relations between the United States and Iran will be discussed. But first, a disclosure: I would rather the U.S. not bomb Iran. Partially because I feel that military aggression hasn't really gotten us anywhere in dealing with opposition forces (see: Iraq, Afghanistan). But also because—and this is perhaps a more pressing reason—I am Iranian and I have family in Iran. And I'd rather they not be bombed.

On to the post:

In what has turned out to be a particularly volatile election year, there have been a number of issues two opinionated people could argue about and still get basically nowhere on: abortion, gay rights, death penalty and many more.

One of the great debates in politics concerns the merits of tax cuts versus tax increases. Traditionally, the Republican Party has preached supply-side economics and tax cuts as means to stimulate growth and investment, whereas the Democratic Party has claimed that tax cuts for only the middle-class will be effective and tax increases elsewhere are beneficial. While both Barack Obama and John McCain have tax plans that are far from perfect, issue should be taken with Sen. Obama’s plan, particularly his claim that 95 percent of workers who earn less than $250,000 will receive a tax cut.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Colin Powell will have a role as a top presidential adviser in an Obama administration, the Democratic White House hopeful said Monday.

"He will have a role as one of my advisers," Barack Obama said on NBC's "Today" in an interview aired Monday, a day after Powell, a four-star general and President Bush's former secretary of state, endorsed him.

"Whether he wants to take a formal role, whether that's a good fit for him, is something we'd have to discuss," Obama said.

Before I begin this, I would first like to respond to all my detractors from two weeks ago. Yes, the Ron Paul folks sent me countless emails and left countless more comments on cornellsun.com. Although I was tempted to just print the same column again, to drive home a point, I instead decided to do some research and “oil my gears with the truth.” The conclusion? They have an agenda and I don’t. And who was that guy who wrote to me that, “as a senior citizen and an observer of economic trends over the last 45 years … [more libertarian agenda]”? Was that you, Dr. Paul? I looked it up and 45 years is actually about how long Ron Paul has been claiming to understand the economy. Ron Paulites, you made this personal.

Last year, I wrote an article about the leading presidential contenders’ stance on issues of higher education. As a college student, these issues are of particular relevance to me as many students look forward to year of paying back 5-figure, even 6-figure student loans. While the economy is collapsing around us, I applaud moderator Bob Schieffer of CBS for asking this question as way to close the debates: “The U.S. spends more per capita than any other country on education. Yet, by every international measurement, in math and science competence, from kindergarten through the 12th grade, we trail most of the countries of the world. The implications of this are clearly obvious. Some even say it poses a threat to our national security.