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 First, the Electoral College is felt to be an outdated system which is no longer necessary for our elections (The Electoral College).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.
This can guard against tyranny because when one person gains too much power, then tyranny is almost guaranteed because there would not be an easy way to stop them from doing only what they desire. For example, if the president had all the power over everyone they would be able to do whatever they want and make laws that maybe no one agrees with. Next, if the power is divided and shared between people, then there will be a strong central government. John Madison presented this idea. When there is a strong central government then it means that the government would have a strong middle, which can guard against tyranny because it keeps the government successful and strong.
As previously talked about in The Federalist 10, the majority group most often threatens the rights of the minorities. Madison believes that there are only two ways to avoid the wrongs brought about by citizens. The first solution is to create a powerful government. This solution would be chancy because a government of this type may place power behind a certain group that is working against the common good. Ultimately if this occurred, the purpose for creating a powerful government would be overlooked.
Reagan 's broad vision and clear direction made his political ideals appealing. What made his policy victories possible was his willingness, when faced with political reality, to make pragmatic compromises without seeming to abandon his ideals. Reagan 's presidency was marked by inconsistencies, so his legacies are mixed: in his individual character, in his policy legacy, and in his constitutional role as custodian of the
However, that being said, people still want the ability to have their own political liberties. This protection does come at a cost-- many of these protections are funded with tax dollars, a situation that has been politically contested for centuries. Citizens want a strong military, but not one strong enough to overpower their own liberty.
What can we do to ensure a redistricting plan that is fully constitutional in the fact that it represents the most perfect cross-section of American society? The answer is complicated. Although the idea of an independent redistricting commission sounds like a safe bet – there has to be certain things in place for it to actually be effective in making the voting process fair. A member of this independent commission would come from a relatively apolitical source. But this “apolitical source” can be fudged.
One great way to deal with factions is by having a government that knows how to control and deal with their effects. Madison believes that a republic can do that job better than a democracy, because a democracy is a small society of people who can not admit there is a cure to factions. He believes that a large republic would work out well for the States, because a larger government causes less negative impacts on the people, even though all of the people won’t be known, the government won’t be too centralized and only focused on the
In an opinion of many, it is the application of a multi-party system that evidently depicts the true picture of democracy. Still even in a two-party system state like the US the level of freedom still is eminent has citizens are free to choose on which two party policies suits them better. The multi-party system will continue to be practised in the majority of European nations but with America it is something that is still far from being
He is arguing for a more active government in the citizens lives, which means a larger government system. This is the best type of government system because the government serves the people. Lincoln isn 't the only president who had these ideas, in fact, former president, Lyndon B. Johnson stated: "If government is to serve any purpose it is to do for others what they are unable to do for themselves." His ideas back up those of Lincoln, again stating that a government is to help others that they cannot do for themselves. An example would be a government and their public welfare systems.
A glorious nation within which exists harmony of the people, the perfect union described by the preamble of the Constitution, carrying out all of its rules and laws. A government that would make the nation’s founders proud. More than what could be said by our current form of government. Government should also move towards better connections with foreign powers. While the government may communicate on a global level, the information is so diluted by the time it reaches the people that it is next to useless.