Senator Mitch McConnell states that the electoral voting system is, “Designed to promote good government and legislation that forwards the common good of a large and diverse nation.” He believes that just because the electoral voting system does not please many people and sometimes may not elect the president that everyone thinks should be the president does not make the system have enough flaws to just cast it out. It exists for many reasons, but mainly for choose the right person for the job. It is the system that keeps the government and its people together like a “linchpin,” as he states. If it were to be removed, the nation could collapse. The electoral college voting system is that exists today to keep the nation going, without having to battle the wrong decisions made by uneducated people.
Apart from this uneven distribution the system of “winner takes all” also discourages people from going out to vote. For example, some Republican lives in a Democratic state that always goes Democratic when it comes to elections, they tend to not go out and vote because they know their vote won’t make a difference because of this “winner takes all” system. In the past 4 elections there has been an average voter outcome which is all around the same, but there is still a chunk of people who don’t go out and vote. Another reason people may not go out to vote is the unfairness of elections. For example, in this past election the two candidates were Donald Trump (Republican) and Hillary
However, its main flaw is not confer on the designated meeting a true representation of the electorate. Cutting by riding makes possible "gerrymandering" to eliminate candidates "undesirable" who must be many more votes than in the neighboring riding to get elected. The proportional voting system is fairer and more democratic but it is criticized for generating government instability. The parties that are able to govern often implement alliances or coalitions with other political parties to obtain a majority in the House of Representatives. The game coalitions can give some small parties "hinges" a key role, more important than their actual weight in the formation of a parliamentary
Current day, it has little relevancy since it was originally included to address also issues that do not exist anymore, including not trusting the decision to be made by the American people. When originally founded, they wanted to ensure the President was decided by electors who had the knowledge to make what they felt was informed decisions. Now, many people feel as though too much power is given to the electoral votes, and that their vote does not mean as much as someone in a different state. As it stands, many feel that small states are largely misrepresented and given too much power since the votes are not divided equally among the population. In fact, if the Electoral College system was not in the Constitution, it would undoubtedly be removed due to it being unconstitutional, because using the electoral votes violates the principle of one-person, one-vote.
From a non-subjective viewpoint, a democracy is allowing the people to have power and some control over the country. A Republic — which the Roman Republic was — on the other hand, is similar to what a democracy is except it protects the minority rights from the majorities. So, from the viewpoint of Roman Republic, a democracy is allowing the people in the Assemblies to grant office to those that deserve it, having the final say in passing or repealing laws, and making the final decision on peace or war. The Roman Republic did give evidence that they are a democracy such as allowing people the ability to vote and letting the people choose, however, there's also evidence on the Roman Republic not being democratic. Either side of the argument the claim is the Roman Republic was democratic.
Does the Majority Actually Rule? Aristotle mentioned “democracy is simply that form of government in which the greater number are sovereign.” (Aristotle) This is describing that the communities of middle and lower class people have a voice in their issues and who is in power looking over them. There are many different pros and cons as to why the majority rule is both beneficial but also hinders the government. Self-determination is described as people having the right to freely choose their sovereignty based on fair equality of opportunity. (Collins Dictionary) Majority-rule ensures that more people ‘get their way’ than people who do not.
In a republic, the constitution protects only certain rights, which cannot be taken away from the government even if the majority of civilians have elected these rights. In a democracy, it is different where the majority of civilians is not restrained to rights and can impose their own rights on the minorities present within a society. However, along with having different limitations on governments by the law, the two political movements do have similar principles on the ideas of rights, where through the use of a representational system, they both allow citizens to vote to elect politicians to represent their interests as well as to form a government to represent these so called civilian rights. Therefore, there are some overlaps is between the way the two governments are ruled, however at the end of the day the clear difference is that no matter what the outcome civilian rights, it all depends on the way the elected bodies choose to distribute these rights over
Without crown corporations, there wouldn’t be gas or electricity services. Those things are usually seen as not profitable for private enterprises to undertake. Things like gas or electricity are demanded by so many people, if a private enterprise decided to take over, they wouldn’t make that much of a huge profit. Crown corporations consider consumers’ interests. The government will step in and establish crown corporations whenever they feel like the wants of their citizens are not met.
Out of the 241 million Americans eligible to vote in the 2012 election, a mere 67% actually participated (Rose). By providing political labels, they create unity in values and makes politicians accountable for their legislations. Assuming that Republicans remain a conservative party and the Democrats remain a liberal party, Americans are more likely to support an individual party. Individualists have the opportunity to run as president, but have difficulty doing so because it is difficult to gain support. Political parties are not prescribed by the Constitution but are critical to success of America.
In the era of post truth politics, voters are seriously misinformed, and will severely impede the accountability of governments. Supposedly, voters cast their vote based on facts and figures. For instance, GDP and unemployment can keep the voters informed about the economic performance of their country, but in post truth politics, a politician can just say the data is manipulated by their opponents (even if it is not), claiming that there is economic growth when there is actually a stagnation or vice versa. In such case, the voters are unable to monitor the government and the government will eventually hold little or no accountability because they can just tell a lie to shift the
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.
Under the Us Constitution the central government know has more power than it did under the Articles of Confederation to stabilize the United States. When the writers came up with the rules for a new government they wanted democracy to be a part of it. A republic was wanted by the colonists after the King imposed taxes and limited the settlement for people in North America. The US Constitution and the Articles of Confederation let the people have a say on how they could govern themselves instead of a monarch. Both documents limited the power that the central government had on the states and its people.
This doesn’t mean everyone will. As the Port Huron Statement points out “each individual sees apathy in his fellows” and this “perpetuates the common reluctance to organize for change.” People having the ability to affect the government and its proceedings means it’s a true democracy; government “for the people by the people.” People don’t always take advantage of this, however those that do contribute to the democracy as a whole. Lobbying allows people to influence politicians, but it’s not the only way. Just writing letters can create change or at least make the politicians aware of the problems. Citizens don’t always take advantage of this, but the option to do so is always present and available if citizens would like to do so.
Many believe that democracy allows people to be free from governmental influence within their lives. Federalism has helped to shape policing in the United States, ||is is often confused with democracy. With federalism power is divided among the government. The federal government creates laws for the whole nation, but federalism gives power to the states to make their own laws. State and federal government both have their own legal codes that they abide by.
The word democracy comes from the Greek word demos, meaning the people. There are two types of Democracy that were created to govern free states; both involving the power being within the hands of the people. The first form of democracy is a Direct Democracy, and according to (Author and section of the book), is a form of political decision in which politics are decided by the people rather than their representatives (Greenberg and page, pg). On the contrary, the other form of democracy is Representative Democracy, which is what America has. A Representative Democracy (also referred as a “Republic”) is a form of indirect democracy, in which the people rule through elected representatives.