Placing a political appointee into office would actually help keep agencies accountable for their actions; in addition to helping the needs of the public, as they often hold the appointee accountable because if they decline in succeeding at their job, the public and the media will definitely let them hear about it. Political appointees may have a higher level of education, but their overall skills in management are often beneath them; as they may or may not be experts in their field, and tend to use their position in government for private gain. By having a government official place a political appointee to the federal job of being a director, there is an excessive increase in the rate at which employees leave a
The proper and necessary clause in the Constitution is too general, and is dangerous due to the fact that it doesn't list all the powers of government in order to put clear limits on them. The executive branch is given too much power from the Constitution, and there is a probability of it becoming a monarchy soon. The Federalists could argue that a strong national government is needed to deal with problems, like trade and defense, but that does not counter the fact that they carry an army during peacetime, and it could be used to suppress the people. They might also say that a strong executive branch is necessary to to fulfill its responsibilities, this can be countered by the fact that one branch should not be stronger than the others, that was the whole point of the three branches. In conclusion, the Constitution has many errors that need mending.
Society plays a huge role in helping us believe what is thought to be right vs wrong or good vs bad. The author, Brent Staples, writes in his article, “Just Walk on By,” gives an insight of what society is really like. Staples shows how much the U.S. has changed and what has stayed the same. Staples does this by appealing to emotions and using ethos as a way to connect to the audience. The author uses this to explain his message which is that he believes that society affects the way we see people and makes many people immediately assume that someone is a particular thing based on how their appearance.
By taking a closer look at voter behavior one is able to better understand how and why citizens make certain decisions and ultimately how they vote come election day. During the election period it is common to hear individuals say that they are using their vote as a vote against a certain candidate or that they are voting for the “lesser of two evils.” An important question to ask is, why? Why do so many people find themselves choosing a candidate solely to keep the other candidate from winning a position in office? Many different theories come in to play when faced with this question. There is the idea that the media is both biased and corrupt which ultimately will effect the views and beliefs of voters and society as a whole.
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
Public Policy is kept secure so it will not draft too far from Public Opinion on low salience issues. When salience issues are low mainly it is because elected official’s come to the realization. That their salience might increase at some future date. Furthermore, exactly at what point does the impact of public opinion get neglected by interest groups and political parties. In an article called The Impact of Public Opinion on Public Policy it states that “Most studies of public opinion and policy focus on issues that researchers find especially important and of interest to them personally.
Consent is not always risen from a direct act, it could be indirect and many philosophers have tried to get around this whole concept of indirect consent. A classic example of indirect consent, could be nationwide elections. By taking part in the elections, you are indirectly consenting to the authority of the state, because if you intend to become obligated by voting then you are allowing the state to enforce laws that should be obeyed, even though you may not always agree with them. If we do not like the laws implemented upon us, we can protest them, but this disqualifies the whole concept of a democratic state, because a state that is democratic would administer certain laws and its citizens would be obligated to obey them. What about a
Government officials are expected to state their opinions on important subjects. This supposed transparency should allow citizens to assume how politicians will act once in power. Yet this outward appearance does not always convey all of their thoughts. Some actions, purely for public image, conceal the thoughts inside their minds and create a false appearance. This display of how people want to be seen is defined as a facade.
Many scholars studied political trust but still the debate remains that what actually being measured. Many controversies surrounding this concept and most prominent are; it is a measure of diffuse support for the political system (Miller 1974), specific support for the incumbents (Citrin 1974), or is the measurement of, How people are satisfied with the performance of incumbents (Citrin and Green 1986)? Trust in authorities(specific support) and trust in regime(diffuse support) are the two types of support first discovered by David Easton(1965,1975) and specific support means support for the officials and diffuse support means support for the form and structure of the government. Following the definition of Easton Us National Election study
Much effort has been put into analyzing voting behavior and patters in previous elections in an effort to predict their own voter base and those social groups they could concentrate their efforts on and those groups that would appear to be a lost cause and therefore a waste of time in terms of money spent and time invested in targeting as potential voters. The use of emotional appeals in political campaigns to increase support for a candidate or decrease support for a challenger is a widely recognized practice and a common element of any campaign strategy. Campaigns often seek to instill positive emotions such as enthusiasm and hopefulness about their candidate among party bases to improve turnout and political activism while seeking to raise fear and anxiety about the
Ms. Mejia: Hello Mrs. Salvarez, I would like to begin by asking you how your role in government different than that of an elected official? Mrs. Salvarez: Hello Ms. Mejia, My role in government is particularly unique because I actually have to thoroughly overlook cases and evaluate evidence before making any decisions. My job is to make sure that the facts are truly facts and make decisions that are and remain unbiased, which can be difficult for most people. We are also elected by the government officials to ensure maximum efficiency. Ms. Mejia: There truly are many differences, however what similarities do the two professions possess?
In my opinion, for our government to work politicians need to listen to the people. The laws passed, the policies made need to be created with the people in mind. With that in mind, if a politician only tells the truth, then the public needs to recognize that the truth may not always be so good. For politicians to pander it may just sound like for politicians to "lie", which isnt the case. I think that politicians should stick to their own personal morals for most of the time.
One would obviously take the position of the experts on the mere fact that they are experts on that topic, however, members of Congress have to take into account the category of people who will get him reelected and normally that is the ordinary citizen. So by voting on a topic based on the not so expert opinion of the ordinary citizen bills, and enacting proposals they may not bring fourth the best solution where as if they would vote on the experts opinion it would be a resourceful way to go about enacting or proposing bills in the House. Arnold has a different way to view the unpopularity of congressmen that is more understandable because I believe they have to take into account numerous amounts of situations, outcomes, and deal with many different people and many more different opinions, congressmen sometimes find themselves caught in the middle choosing between siding with the people because that mean a higher chance of reelection or
They also believe that mandatory voting would make people choose random candidate in order to just do their duty and not get fines or other punishments, but that’s not true because people had already gone to choose so they will take their time because they are already there. They also argue that quality rather quantity is prefered to achieve successful election and strong government, however, having large numbers of people will show exactly the amount of support for that candidate and the one that they choose to run their country in the future and lead them to better country. Voting doesn’t need the political knowledge, and everyone can choose the right person without having any idea about politics. When government forces the people to vote that means it’s so important for the country, and they don’t just do it for no reason. Mandatory voting is a huge change maker, it affects the country in many ways; socially,politically and economically.
This is undemocratic because it allows political leaders or people of high power to choose which party will govern that district and it may make it harder for the majority of the people and voters in a specific area to get what they want. Two districts may be mainly democratic and 2 districts may be mainly republican but politicians may choose to change the districts as 3 districts to be republican and 1 district to be democratic. The general public does not have a say in this therefore it is undemocratic. The act of gerrymandering has been proven to severely change the outcome of democracy by allowing politicians to choose what they want rather than let the voters who represent democracy choose. It is unfair to the party to the party that is trying to compete against the party which gerrymanders.