A decade later that number had more than tripled, and blacks also began serving in Congress and state legislative bodies in record numbers” (Kauffmann). This is great, and now we are completely equal, therefore this amendment did help in equality a little. It lead to many great things ' afterword. When the African Americans voted, the white people treated them like they were normal, unlike what they used to do. Now they have more people in state legislatures and Congress, so they will have more ideas.
America has gone through their fair share of political changes, but the reconstruction era was one of the more difficult of these changes. The Civil War was over and the U.S. had to somehow reintegrate the country and inforce new laws, while figuring out how to deal with the four million newly freed slaves. The reconstruction era was the time when the United States was trying to put itself back together as a stronger more united nation. While eventually many politicians gave up and moved on to other problems, the era did see many achievements as well as
For much of the election, Lincoln believed he had little chance of being re-elected. Because of the increase in war casualties, the idea “peace at all cost” offered by a democratic group known as the “Copperheads”, started to look more and more desirable. It was because of this that McClellan was a favorite to win the election. Internal strains and other issues within the democratic party eventually made Lincoln’s re-election inevitable. In the end Lincoln won 55% of the popular vote and 90% of the electoral vote, easily beating out McClellan.
When the year of 1807 came around, the way that America elected a president changed. In previous elections, only the rich men were able to vote which as a result whoever promised more the wealth was elected for president. When the common man was able to vote in 1807, the type of candidate to win the election change. As seen in the election of 1828 the person who was more relatable to the people, won because the common man was able to vote and so they used that opportunity and elected whoever they thought was going to help them. Overall the people preferred Jackson over Adams because Jackson was able to relate to the people better, and because he was a symbol of the American dream.
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
American voters became more influential in presidential elections because of the events that took place during the Jacksonian and Progressive Eras. In the Jacksonian Era, some voting restrictions were removed, voting became more private, the public was more informed about politics, and voters were taken into greater consideration by presidential candidates. In the Progressive Era, better living conditions, the fight against corruption, and other political reforms made it easier for the working class to vote for candidates that they favored. These events gave voters a greater influence in politics and made elections more fair. During the Jacksonian Era, states began to give citizens a larger influence over presidential elections.
Another way the Cconstitution protected against tyranny was, through the power of big states vs. the power of small states compromises over representation. This process worked as, the amount of representatives appointed was based off the population of that state. The higher the population,= the more representatives. This obviously made making the bigger states happymore happy, because if they had all those representatives they could shift leeway the laws toward their liking, but not too much. The way this evened out was that when senators were appointed every state was given two for six years.
would have won the presidency”(Click). Author of 1912: Wilson, Roosevelt Taft and Debs, James Chace, agrees, “Had the charismatic Roosevelt received the Republican nomination, he almost surely would have won”. Debs and the Socialist party barely stood a chance, but what was significant about his campaign was that he did win six percent of the popular vote, a record for the party. Taft’s chances of winning were also slim, because of TR’s vigorous campaigning and because TR was beloved by most. The division of the Republican parties gave the the Democrats power of the national government, a first time since before the Civil War
Party strength is a measure of the ability of a party to get people to vote for its candidates. The post-World War II shift in party strength was part of a massive shift in policy over time. Scholars saw Republican politicians increasingly excel at getting elected at the local level (Lublin 2006), to offices in the state (Hayes and McKee 2007), and federal governments (Black and Black 2002, 1992; Shafer and Johnston 2006). It is difficult to see how the Republican Party would have become the majority in Congress in 1994 without the increased voting strength in the South. This marked a dramatic shift in national policy.
"A vote is like a rifle it depends on the character of the user". said by Theodore Roosevelt. I believe that everyone should ‘vote in America, It would determine a better President, There would be less argument throughout the country, And the voting in America would improve a lot. The most people that are not happy about their President is the ones that don 't vote. 76% of people vote in the USA.
The popular and the electoral votes yielded the same results because George won both of them. One of the factors played into these results was that more states where republican than democratic at that time so that changed.The second thing that factors the votes was the age differences for voting more republican equals the more voters at the voting age less democratic equals less voters. To vote for a third-party candidate that means to throw your vote away. By not voting for one of the candidates who might win, you take a vote away from one of the legitimate
I believe that, yes it would have an adverse effect on a presidential election because the more debates a democratic party or republican party has means that the public and other party members have time to learn about the candidates and the issues that candidate supports. For example if a person like Donald trump which is on the republican party goes outside to a lot of debates and shows he’s not afraid he could outshine his competition in debates and even win more votes over the democratic party that has its main runner Hillary Clinton at a disadvantage with less debate time. Yes debates influence candidate selection during elations because the person decided who to vote for knows the side they want, and they know what that candidate thinks
The debate between Thomas Jefferson and his opponent, Aaron Burr was considered very heated, so when congress gave Jefferson the presidency and Burr the vice presidency, many people became defensive. Jefferson strongly believes that all men are equal regardless of political party. Instead of degrading the other political party, he used a different technique so that every citizen would calm down. Jefferson stated that “We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists” (Jefferson). Because the government release some of its power, which allowed the people to vote for who they wanted, it gave some insight for Jefferson about what a good government is.
While Republicans are voted mostly by white men, Democrats are voted by other minority races like Blacks and Hispanics, along with higher number of women. Of these, the younger adults tend to be toward Democrats, while middle-aged adults tend to favor the Republicans. This could also be linked to the income and education level, where higher income and education favors the Republican side and the lower, the Democratic side. Marital status has an influence too, where married couples are more toward the Republicans, and singles more toward the Democrats. The regions are distinct too, where Republicans are strongest in the South and Midwest of U.S. apart from Democrat’s power in the Northeast and California.
Parties solve the problem of ambition and elective office seeking by managing the political structures and career ladders. In Why Parties, John Aldrich writes, “If elective office is indeed valuable, there will be more aspirants than offices, and the political party and the two-party system are means of regulating that competition and channeling those ambitions.” The somewhat institutionalized paths parties set up helps regulate politicians incentives and decrease the amount of intraparty competition. However, parties have not always been able to solve this problem; a classic example is the 1912 election where Theodore Roosevelt and William Taft split the Republican vote, thus allowing Woodrow Wilson to win. Still, parties have a better ability