Is Gerrymandering a Controversial Topic? Gerrymandering is a process where the ruling political party uses the map of their state to draw lines that create voting districts in favor of their party. The result of this is that it doesn’t reflect the voters political views. For about 200 years the government has used gerrymandering during political elections and it continues to be used today (King, Elizabeth) .
Okay, so instead of just leaving this picture up here, maybe I 'll just go ahead and explain why voting for a third party in a presidential election is a vote against your own interest. 1. Ultimately, the point of voting is to choose an electable candidate who most closely conforms to your personal views, the key word being "electable." If we take a candidate being effectively unelectable as being no different consequentially (See 2) than one who is fundamentally unelectable (read: someone who doesn 't qualify for the position by virtue of not being an American citizen, or not being of sufficient age, etc.), then voting for a third party would appear to be contrary to the idea of voting in some sense. 2.
The general election occurs in early November where the population votes, known as the popular vote, for who they would like to be president. However, the popular vote is not used to determine the next president of the United States. The votes from the Electoral College are used to determine the winner of the election. Political parties select who will serve as electors, then the electors will meet and Congress will count the votes for President and Vice President. In order to win presidency a nominee must gain 270 electoral votes, over half of the 538 electoral votes.
Elections matter, especially local ones where it is possible to have some access to the decision makers and their decisions. But on a larger scale, it’s all about the money, which buys name recognition, which determines popularity, which is what elections are about. Values, ideas, interests even (except as determined by money), come a distant second, third, etc. If the Democratic Party signs an iron-clad contract to change electoral law to provide for Instant Runoff / Preference Voting elections with proportional representation in local, state and national legislatures, the Greens and other Third Party, plus Independent voters might agree to vote for
This implies that a President can voluntarily resign or be pressured to resign by the Governor General, Prime Minister and Governors, triggering another election so that the people can choose a new President. ROLES & POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT The Head of State would, in this model, perform the ceremonial duties of a national representative. Because the Governor General’s position is retained in this model, those roles and powers would not transfer to the Head of State. Instead, the Head of State would only have 1 other power, which is codified, the ability to “appoint and dismiss State Governors at the behest of the Prime Minister”
First, individual merit has never been the sole focus of judicial selection. Judges are often picked by presidents based on if they seemingly lean to the right or left in decisions. Furthermore, descriptive representation actually ensures that the people who are chosen for the job are the most qualified by focusing on their merits instead of ideology or political stances. To make sure no one could say the justice got a job they did not earn or deserve, only those who are highly capable and qualified for the job could actually be selected. Only the best of the best would be chosen because they would have to stand
Another disadvantage is that they are usually not allowed on ballots due to the lack of popular support of media attention and signatures to warrant a place under local
In Confucianism, Doctrine of Mean in terms of decision making means putting effort to make eclectic decisions between two extremely opposite claims after discussion and consultation. The decision made though democratic process by majority is usually not extreme but relatively eclectic (Xu, 2006). Government, certainly cannot become dominant and ignore public sentiments under this principle. This principle could even complement the drawback of Western democratic elections which might select a ruler without enough motivation and competence to make a decision that can take both majorities and minorities into
However, since this method of election is not completely reliant on the popular vote, it is possible for a candidate to become a minority president: a president who only received a majority of electoral votes (and not of the popular vote). Thus, the question arises whether the Electoral College is an appropriate method of selecting a president. After further analysis, it becomes clear that the Electoral College is not a proper mechanism for electing the president.
First of all, I want to start off by saying that we don’t actually vote for the candidates themselves, but for electors who cast their ballots on our behalf into the electoral college . To vote in the United States you have to be at least 18 years old, a U.S citizen and be registered to vote. Voting is typically a problem in the U.S because so few actually vote. Voting can be affected by many factors, including: Education, Ethnicity, Age and Wealth . People who are less educated and poor aren’t as likely to show up versus those who are educated and adequately wealthy.
The general election designed in a way where voters in less populous states have more per-voter influence on Electoral College than voters in more populous states. (Due to the Apportionment Act of 1911), which limits the House of Representatives size and keeps the House from growing along with the population as Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution outlines. The answer to this problem is a not a more direct voting system based on the popular vote. Conversely, even though all forms of democracy have problems, the current elections process produces exceptionally bad
With the Electoral College people are “Ignoring New York, California and Texas or nearly 30% of the population”(Passage 3) People may not even get to choose who they vote for. With the electoral vote it makes states like Ohio more important than Rhode Island because it is a “swing state.” The process for the Electoral College is not even the same in some of the states because each state has it’s own rules. It also makes elections so much more complicated than it needs to be. The Electoral College takes away power from the people, and that is the foundation that this country was supposed to be built on.
Other systems like run-off election and direct popular vote show a better picture of what the people want. In “One Vote For The Electoral College" the author goes into detail and explains direct popular election. “This successful and satisfactory system, one that has worked with only a few close calls, would dissolve with the abolition of the Electoral College, exposing the nation to dangerous forces that could tear it apart” (Turner 414). Besides the direct popular election, there is also the run-off election. It is functioned around making sure the people’s vote does not go to waste.
Overall, just because you win the Electoral College vote this does not mean that you will also go on to win a majority of the national popular vote as well. The race at this point is still far from over voters still have enough time to change direction and abandon their earlier views towards a particular candidate and the Electoral College vote gives voters an insight on what the race is shaping up to be like towards the final stretch). I believe the main pros and cons of the college electoral vote are the people amongst society play a vital role in deciding who will lead the country. Although the popular vote can be over ruled by the electoral vote the American citizens still have the opportunity to participate and educated themselves on the process of choosing the president. With the Electoral College comes its opposition, who believe that the considerations of the Founders are no longer relevant in today’s political system (Madonna,
Two-party systems are where two political parties dominate voting in almost every election, and most of the elected officials are from one of the two parties. They promote centrism, less extremism, and are more stable and easier to govern than multi-party systems (Hershey). However, two-party systems have been criticized for rejecting different views. They don’t promote diverse viewpoints like multi-party systems do. Also, the winner-take-all attitude discourages independent or third party candidates from running for office (Hershey).