First of all, the checks and balances guards against tyranny because if we don't stay in check someone might gain too much power. This is very bad because then if they have all the power they want they can do pretty much whatever they want. Many people would end up not agreeing to the laws they make this would basically guarantee a tyranny. The next reason is because checks keep a strong government. An example is without keeping check then the government wouldn't be as strong because of having multiple people with power there would only be one.
In addition, the winner-take-all system, also known as “unit rule”, while not always necessarily representative of the popular vote, “the electoral college and unit rule provide decisive majorities that lend stability to our presidential election system” (Josephson, Ross 162). This stability compliments the argument that it simply isn’t worth the effort to make any changes to the Electoral College because of the work involved and how functional it is. The Electoral College may not be the most ideal system, but it performs the functions it was designed to do. As said by Alexander Bickel on the
The only way to change our country is by working with each other, not against each other. With some Americans refusing to stay open minded to the beliefs of the opposite political party, our country will get nowhere. As one of our country’s Founding Fathers, Washington would not approve of this, and demand the next president change this. If George Washington was still alive today, he would be able to give the next president advice to transform our country. Someone with the unbiased mindset toward the two main political parties would be a much needed perspective for the next president.
Seldom, do groups remain together for centuries and as evident in the text, conflict is bound to happen. He appeals to logos by defining democracy when he states that governments derive their power from the consent of the governed. In a way, this defies the current situation in Great Britain and discusses the offenses Great Britain has committed. In, “…mankind are more disposed..,” he declares that humans prefer to suffer sufferable evils than to abolish those evils they are accustomed to. He expands his purpose by showing an example of human nature and that humans do not like the unknown, even if the unknown may be somewhat positive or beneficial.
Many people all around the country probably won’t certainly agree with the author of A More Perfect Constitution by Larry Sabato. Larry Sabato main idea was that the United State Constitution was outdated and needed to be reform somehow. He believed a change to the Constitution will going to be really hard due to the massive number of traditional political conservatives that the country had. Sabato explain that these conservatives’ people will oppose to the idea of different view of the Constitution by saying “the Constitution is just good as it is”. The conservatives’ support only their views as the Constitution was just fine the way it is, and it was original because that was the intent of the founders in how to interpret the Constitution.
There is always another side to the story. Federalist, these people supported the constitution. Though they knew that the constitution wasn’t perfection yet, According to document 3 George Washington state 's ”We have errors to correct… would to God, that wise measures may be taken in time to avert the consequences we have but too much reason to apprehend”. George was sure that the constitution wasn’t perfect but that in this time of need they need something like it. They need a strong government, to win over the people who won’t support over fear of loss of natural laws, like mentioned in document 1 “Let us look and behold the distress which prevail in every part of our country… View these things, fellow citizens, and then say we do not require a new, a protection, and efficient federal government if you can” this document was quoted from a newspaper in Massachusetts.
People are naturally distrustful of an executive. If there were to be a new convention it is quite possible that the executive will be nurtured out of fear of their previous power. Furthermore, I think his argument shows a weakness wherein he seems to disregard the need for emergency powers. Levinson’s claims up to this point seem to be that through more democracy we will have a better system. However, this does not seem to be the case, the most distrusted branch of government is the one closest to the people, the congress.
The Federalists wanted a strong central government. The Anti- Federalists claims Constitution gives the central government too much power and, and they worried about the new constitution will not give them any rights. That the new system threatened freedom; Also, threatened the sovereignty of the states and personal liberties; failed to protect individual rights. Besides, some of famous peoples such as " Patrick Henry" and artists have came out against the Constitution. Although the anti-Federalists were unsuccessful in stopping the passage of the Constitution, their efforts have been responsible for the creation and implementation of the Bill of
In the past recent years, there have been numerous terrorist attacks on America like 9/11, The Boston marathon bombing, and the Oklahoma beheading. Many attacks that were done in the past years have been done without the use of guns. The democratic government, however, thinks that by banning guns it will simply stop terrorism because there would be no violence. What the government fails to realize is that if someone really wanted to commit an act of terrorism then they will find a way to do it. The democratic government in the past and until recently has been missing this key point and offer a simple minded, ineffective solution to a problem that is much bigger than just the use of guns.
Also, I think that we should get rid of the popular vote. There are so many reasons why we need an Electoral College. The Electoral College keeps the coastal elites from basically choosing whoever they want for president. Many people often get mistaken and believe that the Founders wanted a popular vote and power to the people, however, nowhere in the constitution does it say anything about that. If there wasn’t an Electoral College then the smaller states would be at a complete disadvantage.