The argument of those who believe this way has many components. First, the Electoral College is felt to be an outdated system which is no longer necessary for our elections (The Electoral College). Opponents of the College admit that yes, at one point in time, the Electoral College was a necessary component in electing the President of the Union. However, technology has made it so that the information necessary to make informed decisions about voting is available to the majority of voters (The Electoral College). Voters today are more informed than they were back when the constitution was written and, because of that, placing the final vote in the hands of electors rather than the people is unnecessary.
If the debate cannot get sixty votes for cloture then a bill can never get passed. Getting sixty votes is not easy and 41 senators can vote against cloture claiming they want more discussion. This way the minority still have more power than the majority. Passing a law is an important decision, and a law should be accepted by every citizen, benefits for the country so a single opinion is necessary. The minority still win but of this 60-vote supermajority threshold to end debate makes both sides have equal power.
Presidents are mostly elected due to popular votes, meaning they say whatever they believe the people want to hear. This idea of populism allows candidates to run for office by focusing on the satisfaction of the people’s urges rather than long-term improvements. In comparison to a monarchy, a leader who stays in power for a longer time can remind their country of what it represents and where their traditions came from in challenging times. In a democracy, the leader changes often, this can confuse the people during a tough time, because they might not know where the president
In his assumption, parties do not really care about the policies they make, all they want is the votes that enable them to stay in office. Then if the information is complete and costless to everybody, the voters compare policies offered by different parties and vote for the one that serves their best interest. The politicians will treat people equally because everyone has and only has one vote. The best strategy for parties is to choose policies that they believe benefit most of the voters. However, if the information is not easily available to all, things are much different.
The way the electoral college is not fair to the people if it come to a tie or nobody reaches the 270 votes needed because their vote does not matter anymore and it goes to the house of representatives and they will side with whatever party they are with, Winner takes all method makes it so third party does not have any chance to win at all even if a 50/49 vote all electoral votes will go to the 50%, Lastly it needs to be abolished because it is not fair to smaller states and prefers larger states with having a lot more electoral votes than other states. The electoral college is something that was working in the past because the states were not associated with any party and with the changes to America and her people the way we elect our leader needs to change
One of the most influential leaders of the 20th century once said "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” Obviously Winston Churchill was not wrong at all. When we consider the other forms of government such as: communism, monarchy, dictatorship, and compare them with democracy. Democracy will be definitely one of the best form of government. On the other hand some of the most powerful countries such as: China or Russia believe that authoritarian regimes or different forms of democracy are better for their economic growth. This leads me to the question:"Is democracy the only option for governing"?
They vote on any politics issues from the smallest to the biggest in harmony. Obviously, direct democracy is more democratic; the majority can have the best. This inspired us an idea of direct democracy could work well today in the United States as well; nonetheless, it is too idealistic. This essay will clarify why government is important to our life, the strength and weakness of direct democracy compare to representative democracy, and why direct democracy is unfeasible for America. Undoubtedly, government is one of the most important components of people’s life.
Everyone cherishes desire to be respectable and famous person in life, this happens when someone get wealth more than his/her needs, she/he tries to find out other ways to be fame. There are many ways, but one of the easiest ways is politics to gain the fame and power. There is nothing free food in the world, if one gets all that, he/she has to compromise with her/his consciousness. So, I consulted in this regard with my close and old friend named Mr. Consultant; advised me that a man should be intelligent to the core or to be foolish in the same capacity to be a politician.
The IOA which is supposed to promote Olympic sports, has created federations for non-Olympic sports because smaller bodies are easily manageable and secure their votes. As there has been no categorical specifications for becoming a member of a sporting body and the ‘be all and end all’ is to stay in power, the influential people nurture a vote bank by appointing people close to them. This creates an incestuous and nepotistic little club of sports administrators, scratching each others’ backs. A listing of the presidents and chiefs of various sport federations in India and their formal political linkages is telling. In India federations still run on an ad hoc basis with most official working in honorary capacity .this means that running the federation professionally is least of their priority .the honorary structure also does not breed accountability and that is the real problem which is ailing Indian sports .in the Indian system the politicians or businessmen are normally looked as trouble shooters when the federation is in urgent need of funds or any issues need to be sorted out at the earliest.
The representatives elected by the people to conduct the affairs of the state with the support of the people. If they do not work well or do not meet the expectations of the people, the representatives may not have again in the next election. In this way, people do not need to revolt when wants change. That means the wishes of the public is the supporter of the parliamentary government and not based on fear of the authorities. Democracy stands on consensus and not on power; the citizens have the opportunity to take part actively in the