Because of the high percentage of the white race, they tend to be wealthier. African Americans, Hispanics and Asians are the largest groups of minorities and tend not to be recognizable. I advocate that TV endorses a more equivalent prospect for all races. Furthermore, Television also enacts a leading protagonist in conversation, businesses, prosperity and discrimination. It is said that “the higher your education, the more money you could make.” Which is truthful.
Voter income has become increasingly affiliated to ideological and party ID, with higher-income voters tending to be linked with Republicans, and lower-income voters leaning Democrat. The divide is significant enough that political scientists, namely Nolan McCarty in his book, Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches, have denoted popular theories for polarization (such as Southern realignment and religion) in favour of income as the primary reason. McCarty argues that the tendency for high-income Americans to side with the Republican Party reduces incentives for politicians to look for a middle ground when considering economic issues; therefore, less centrists are in government, and polarization between the two parties occur, with politicians growing farther apart on the ideological scale in order to satisfy the voting needs of the voters they have already captured (high-income for Republicans, and middle/low-income for Democrats). (McCarty et al.,
Contra arguments Many scholars believe that direct democracy pave the way for citizens to give their opinion directly to formulate policy makings. Though it has a lot of advantages but many scholars outline the drawbacks of the direct democracy. Feld & Matsusaka (2000) found that cantons with mandatory referendums spend significantly less than other cantons based on panel data for all 26 cantons from 1980 to 1998. The estimate that the presence of a mandatory referendum with a spending threshold of 2.5 million Swiss francs (the sample median) is associated with 19% less expenditure per capita, holding constant other determinants of spending such as income. The magnitude of this effect is remarkably large, and suggests that the spending choices of Swiss legislators are far from the preferred policy of the median voter.
Third party candidates lack political influence in the U.S. due to the overwhelming two major party success rates. Their success can be largely attributed to the many electoral institutional rules that contribute to limiting the rise of third parties, their competition. This historically proven major party dominance is due to many factors including institutional arrangements, election laws, electoral college rules, and campaign finance laws that have shaped the course of American elections; however, there are instances in which third parties can overcome electoral institutional challenges and make noticeable progress. The institutional arrangements in the United States have made major two-party success almost inevitable; however, there is
It was also found that in the Northwest and Midwest had a higher percent of people having this belief than the south and the west. More than elderly people, middle aged citizens were more likely to agree to the right to refuse. Men and Catholics were also more likely agree than women and Protestants respectively, with Hispanics being most likely. Is it really okay for us to treat people wrongly if our religion says so? And is this what “God”wants from us?
Status Quo & Policy Alternatives Currently, sponsors of ballot initiative campaigns are not limited to a particular amount, which affords leverage such as expertise in public opinion polling, computer-targeted mailing, and television advertising to the wealthier party. To combat the defects of this form of direct democracy, reformers have proposed several policy alternatives. One alternative is to provide better information. According to a 2002 state commission and recent report by the Center for Governmental Studies, roughly a third of initiatives since 2000 have more than 5000 words, which is too long and too confusing for the majority of voters (Mathews and Paul, 173). Another alternative is to raise restrictions on the process (e.g.
With the assumption that the political satire is the entire frame of reference that adolescents have for the political scape, therefore causing a push the viewers to vote liberal to agree with the views of the show, that is mostly a false statement. There have been arguments made that the popularity of satirical political programs has forced the youth who come into the political stage only knowing these satirical comedies are only narrowing their view of politics; however, “[a]rguments that satire actually increases narrow-mindedness because it panders to liberals also have their flaws. While there are few Republican and conservative viewers, data show that less than half of the viewers of “The Daily Show” and “The Colbert Report” are liberals; in fact, 38 percent of viewers of “The Colbert Report,” as well as 41 percent of those watching “The Daily Show,” consider themselves independents. These shows have roughly the same percentage of Democrat viewers as the New York Times and USA Today and a lower percentage than CNN, all of which claim to be non-partisan news sources.” There is proof that while it may seem as if there is a majority of the viewers of these comedies identify as liberal, that would be incorrect. Despite the correlation of the majority of the viewers of these shows being in the youth bracket, and the majority of the
Essentially, highly populated states will find that their individual votes count proportionality less. In Document D, we are shown an example in which we can visually see how one citizens vote weighs more heavily than others depending on the state. While Illinois has a larger population than all twelve states and D.C. depicted
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
This is an important point to note since it highlights that young people do not have information guiding them on the importance of voting. More women as compared to men, turnout to vote. Surprisingly, the number of women who vote has been on a consistent increase over the past elections. Notably, more persons from high income-families turn out to vote as compared to those from low-income
There are a number of differences in the demographics between the ones that are and are not politically involved. Older people tend to vote more than the younger people by their concern toward the government, as well as the number of white Americans voting more than the other minority races would. The educated will vote more than the uneducated by having more knowledge of the election, along with families with higher income of over $65,000 having time to vote than the low income ones of $35,000 or under. The ones who shows party identification would want to get involved in politics, whereas independent individual would not care as much. People who grew up with specific ideology would want to have a say in politics, in contrast to those who did not.
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
Some changes in party polarization in Congress over the last several decades are the party division between Republicans and Democrats as having widened over the last several decades, leading to greater partisanship. What caused this change was increasing homogeneous districts and increasing alignment between ideology and partisanship among voters. I feel this can be good because the original congress was just one and if you did not agree with this opinion you could not do anything about it. Now at least you can fall under a category which is Republican or Democrat. In fact, I believe there should be more than just two parties because I know most people like some of the ideologies from Democrats (such as being more liberal) but they also like
The larger states were in favor for this plan yet the smaller states were not as supportive. The larger states wanted 3 branches the Judicial, Executive, and legislative. Some disadvantages about the plan were that the plan was mainly for the bigger states. Also that they wanted more representatives in congress based on the size of the population. So the plans were biased.
Although the popular votes do not determine the elector votes, it almost always happens where the electors vote for whom the popular votes resulted in. This is one of the many reasons why the Electoral College is unfair, past elections have shown that bigger populations have more electoral votes, concluding that smaller states’ votes become insignificant. This leaves people in question, is the Electoral College now based on where you live? Even though the purpose of the electoral college is to ultimately decide who will occupy the position of the president, there was an Electoral Commision of elite representatives, established to determine the 19th President, because of the situation the electoral college caused. The commission included five representatives from the House, another five associates from the Senate and five justices from the Supreme Court.