It is basic psychology that people usually align themselves with news, friends, and sources that confirm their beliefs, which is confirmation bias. Political parties rely heavily on confirmation bias especially from the news because the media usually discuss issues related to a two-party system as opposed to issues based on merit. The political parties view this and use it to their advantage because it divides the debate into Republicans versus Democrats. As Kim from IVN mentions a study from the Pew Research
This allows the politicians to select one representative from each district to represent the majority of the voters in that district. This can benefit a political party because it allows them to have more seats in the house. “Eliminating gerrymandering would not by itself dramatically increase the competitiveness of house and state….between the two major political parties” (Mann, Thomas
Political Polarization in United States It has become out rightly clear that the American politics are bombarded by extreme political polarization bordering both on the political allegiance and ideologically. Political journalists, observers and scholars generally seem to agree on the American populations and politics being more politically and ideologically polarized than was experienced a decade ago. These circumstances have led to a scenario where ideological and political overlap has almost disappeared leading to constituents and politicians’ alike leading to the rise of different states that support either the democrat or republican parties. Essentially, these states are termed to as the safe states in regards to the social culture, ideological
Over the last few decades, the United States Congress has debated numerous campaign finance reforms. Debated proposals have included limiting independent expenditures, raising limits on individual contributions, banning all private campaign contributions, and creating a public financing campaign system. In many of the debates, compelling arguments exist for both the proponents and the opponents. Generally, arguments are predicated upon constitutional concepts, Supreme Court rulings, standard policy, logic and reason, and personal perspectives.
The difference lies in the fact that the average non-political voter will typically vote for a candidate based on appearance and relatively scanty information as opposed to a knowledgeable assembly of politicians who would otherwise have a more thorough association and this can be viewed as a disadvantage. Authors Sean Gailmard and Jeffrey A. Jenkins in their article titled, “Agency Problems, the 17th Amendment, and Representation in the Senate”, found in the EBSCO database clarify this when stating, “While the 17th Amendment did create a direct agency relationship, it also eliminated both the informed selection and monitoring of U.S. Senators by relative political experts, state legislators. Therefore, U.S. Senators may have been held to a better post-amendment standard in democratic terms, but not as tightly as they were held to their pre-amendment
There’s being a debate mainly informed by the fact that there is a agreement that the governor of Texas has less potential compared to the others governors from other states. And the debate is wether the governor of Texas needs more power or not. There is some people who think that the governor needs more power in order to be equal with the other states. Theres has been some people who believe that the governor should stay the way it is because they say that the Governor’s office in Texas is is considered to be extremely weak specially if they compared it with the other states.
Furthermore, STV led elected bodies with a broader representation and thus there are more likely able to reflex the electorate’s views and more responsive to them. The parties will have broad coalitions. It is more likely a few parties will have to work together and no single party will control overall. Next, STV can eliminate tactic voting. Tactical voting means an act of voting for a political party or a person that you would not usually support in order to prevent another party or person from winning.
There aren’t many stats I can rely on, but I think it is true that in the past few years people have become very extreme with their politics. What I mean by that statement is that the middle ground seems to be going away, and people are drifting to either left-wing or right-wing. I think this starts at the top, recently Congress has become very unwilling to compromise and work together, fostering the idea of extreme party loyalty. I think now more than ever people think in terms of Democrat and Republican, rather than right and wrong. Both sides blame each other and believe the other side is what is wrong with America when in reality they are both poisonous.
They may argue that it gives less populated areas a voice, leading to a unified country (Kimberling). William C. Kimberling notes, “Proponents argue that the Electoral College system contributes to the cohesiveness of the country by requiring a distribution of popular support to be elected president, without such a mechanism, they point out, president would be selected either through the domination of one populous region over the others or through the domination of large metropolitan areas over the rural ones.” When stated this way, one can see the benefits of the Electoral College. On the contrary, some believe it allows rural populations to have the upperhand (Kimberling). This is due to the fact that electoral votes are not determined by population size, but by the number of House and Senate members.
al., 2015). Two-tiered pluralism, on the other hand, emphasizes the political and societal privileges accorded to the non-Hispanic White majority and the political and societal disadvantages suffered by the racial and ethnic minorities, of which the uneven political playing field is a consequence. Such so-called inequality of the United States today in politics and other instances has then made it more clear that two-tiered pluralism reflects more realistic analysis of U.S. racial and ethnic issues (DeSipio, 2015: Week 2-3 Lectures; Norman, 2015; Schaefer, 2000; Shaw et. al.,
The presidency is more polarized now than it was before the 1990s. Even when Reagan was president, there were both liberals and conservatives in both Democratic and Republican parties. There was a slight difference between Northern and Southern Democrats, but for the most part, there were different ideologies in both partisanships. Now, that is not the case. We only have liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans.
This was a change in perception of the electorate. The Eisenhower presidency was in existence because of a new southern middle class and this new middle class was caused by changes in the economy. The relatively affluent voters would stay Republican voters and became the backbone of the new southern Republican electorate (Shafer and Johnston 2006). If this is correct, then some of the recent studies on changes in the southern electorate started after political changes had already begun making their findings less accurate than we might
Appointing the judges on the other hand would only benefit that particular party affiliation. The outcome of judges being appointed would ultimately bring more harm than good. The plus for appointments would
Today, President Trump, like President Reagan, is interested in transferring government spending on Medicaid and giving block grants to the states to control their own Medicaid programs. Many people, even some Republicans, are worried that the states, without much government intervention will cut people from the services they are receiving currently. The politicians who are in disagreement with this proposal strongly favor a more centralized government and cling tight to the original meaning of
Party polarization is the division between the two major parties on most policy issues, with members of each party is unified around their party’s position with little crossover. The competing explanations for polarization are how congressional representatives are elected, lawmakers selecting a candidate for office and as congressional districts and states have become more homogeneous. Every 10 years, congressional district geographic boundaries are redrawn so that each district has roughly the same population. These districts are increasingly drawn to be safe for one political party or another so that the district has a clear majority of either republicans or Democrats. This process is known as gerrymandering.