That means a number of different things. First, the Party, with such a high number of one voting segment making up its ranks, does not have the capability to understand the viewpoints of minority voters. Secondly, with minorities being a large voting segment, the GOP can no longer win national elections without them. Finally, without the viewpoints of minorities, the GOP is more prone to hateful bigots like Donald Trump harnessing power in its ranks. Because of all those factors, it was easy for Donald Trump to gain power in the GOP and destroy it for years to come.
The democrats have stayed with this system more so than the republicans because Nixon and Reagan buried their democrat rivals in the general elections and won by landslides so, they decided that when they have a candidate that they know will not stand up well against the rival party, that they have the ability to impact who gets nominated and possibly field a more successful candidate. If I would have been asked this question prior to this election, I probably would have said “Get rid of the superdelgates,” but now I’m not 100% sure. With a candidate like Trump, you see that he has a great voter following, more than anyone thought would ever take him seriously. Imagine if the Democratic Party had a candidate like Trump (some see Bernie Sanders as a “grassroots activist” in the Democratic Party although Bernie is not emotionally and negatively divisive). Trump may take the popular vote but, he may not get the “unpledged" delegates (Republican Party) or enough total delegates to get the nomination and for me, that would be a “pro” for the “super or “unpledged” delegate
To be clear, the two numbers do not necessarily indicate causation, and there could be several other factors attributed. However, what cannot be debated is the same Pew Research Center study found a majority (Both, Democrats and Republicans) believe money has a greater influence on politics today, and the high cost of presidential campaigns discourages good candidates. (Desilver & Van Kessel, 2015). The sentiment of voters is clear, big money has permeated campaigns to an unacceptable degree. To illustrate, Super PACs made $65 million in expenditures in 2010, $608 million in 2012, and $339 for the 2014 mid-term elections (Desilver & Van Kessel, 2015).
There were many undervotes in majority of the states with this election and more than one hundred million people voted out of each state and made it an extremely close election. But this was no regular election, they were voting off of who was more known than voting off of the good things that both of them can do for the United States. But the election was not based
According to Britannica 's definition the winner-take-all system, means that the candidate with the most votes wins that state’s electoral votes. Under winner-take-all systems, a slim majority of voters can control 100% of seats, leaving everyone else effectively without representation. Winner-take-all election systems do nothing to provide representation to any group making up less than half of the population and the high percentage of the vote needed to win the election can be a severe barrier to minority candidates. Since many areas are dominated by a single political viewpoint, winner-take-all voting systems will often result in elections where one party has a stronger influence than another party does. The state of Texas, where the majority is Republican, and the state of New York, where the majority is Democratic, are two examples that represent this
The Impact of Women's Suffrage on the U.S. The right to vote is perhaps the most coveted of American liberties. Without the right to vote, populations of people in the United States would cease to have key representation in this representative democratic government. But with the enormous societal emphasis that America puts on voting and elections in the modern status quo, little focus is placed on the incredibly surprising fact that, for much of American history, the right to vote was not one bestowed to all citizens. Instead, hundreds of years persisted in the United States in which the majority of the population did not have any say in the inner workings of their government—at least so far
He desires to eliminate Obamacare and adjust the tax system, among other issues on his platform. Despite never holding a political office, Carson has been very active in politics. He often writes articles on the big issues, sharing his opinion on the matter. As an inexperienced but active politician, Ben Carson has a solid chance of being president. Beginning his campaign with little support, Carson did not have good polling
It is functioned around making sure the people’s vote does not go to waste. As Turner said in his article, “...most call for the winning candidate to receive a popular plurality (forty percent is often mentioned) and a run-off election if that is not achieved” (414). Run-Off was made so if a vote for a certain candidate became no longer valid, as in they dropped out or got voted out, the vote would still matter and it would go onto the individual 's next suggested candidate. “Wouldn’t it be an intolerable strain to the American political system, giving rise to popular outrage and contempt… that sometime again a man with fewer popular votes than his opponent is the electoral winner? I doubt it…” (Bayh 169).
One reason the Electoral College should be abolished is that one of the candidates could win the popular vote and still end up losing the election. On November 8th, 2016 Donald Trump was elected president because the Electoral College voted for him. Approximately thirty out of the fifty states’ electoral colleges voted for Donald Trump, he ended with 290 Electoral College votes. He had lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton by about one million people because the vote of the citizens in the US has no value. The Electoral College votes are the only ones with value.
As an encouragement to vote most of us have probably been told, “every vote counts” at some point in our lives. In reality, this is not true in presidential elections due to the Electoral College and what it does. The Electoral College has flaws in it that can prohibit the outcome of the election from accurately reflecting whom a majority the people of the country cast their vote for. Not only will he abolishment of the electoral college change the outcome of elections, it can change the whole campaign process and the way some people in less represented states feel about voting increasing voter turnout. Every four years in early November we have the most important election that there is in this country, the presidential election.
Any individual who wants to be reelected wants to run just as great, or even greater of a campaign to win the election as they once did. However, Bulworth did not, he spoke about exactly what he wanted to talk about to whomever he wanted to talk to. A liberal who later is accused of being conservative politician, despises his life and job. He lost millions of dollars in the market and has no sense of hope for the future. He then signs a lucrative deal with a life insurance company which will give huge amounts of money to his daughter.
According to the statistic of We the people, “most members of Congress are elected in landslide elections, and why 98 percent of incumbents are re-elected.” (385). It is actually hard for new candidates to win and replace incumbents because of redistricting. In other words, the results are almost in the desire of legislators, so the voting of citizens looks wasting time and money and does not express their right in the election. The purpose of election to look for the winner with the highest rate of votes, but gerrymandering interrupts that purpose and drives the result into their bias parties. Therefore, the election in America does not prove that it is a democracy country as far as existing gerrymandering.