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. (Black, 2012) So, while it is clear that the Electoral College was set up to ensure all states have a voice, it now seems to have the ability to take away the voice of the people. It is necessary to look at our voting process and make the necessary changes needed to ensure the process of electing our President represents the voice of the people. By switching to a majority vote we ensure that the voice of all people are not only heard, but are represented equally, which is how it should be under the one-person, one-vote
For a globalizing world, people who favor the strong party government suggest that responsible parties are essential for problems such as global warming and terrorism. However, the advantage of party government cannot compensate its disadvantages. First and foremost, the nature of party government would increase the conflicts in American politics. The party government does represent the majority, meaning that there is potential for some minorities and interests groups are not properly represented. This would lead to further conflicts in politics.
So, the branches check one another and the people elect the members other than in the judicial branch, whose members are chosen by the executive branch. Madison brings up that it isn’t possible to divide power absolutely equally and “In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.” (2). And so, the legislative branch will be divided even more to try and combat the unbalance of power. Madison thought this system was a good method because he believed that it was part of human nature to have conflicting ideas and wants, and so each branch could keep the others in line and therefor no one power is above the others. Furthermore, Madison believes a bigger government with multiple branches is better because then it becomes difficult for one
Other conflict that stemmed from the formation of the Constitution was the development of two different groups; the Federalists, those who supported the Constitution and the Antifederalists, those who did not support the Constitution. Federalists sought to reform the government system by implementing an executive power to act as a mediator for states so that no specific state had more power than the other and so that critical deeds can be executed without problem, such as collecting taxes. Anti-Federalists wanted to stray away from an authoritative power, fearing that a powerful and distant government would not serve for the interests and needs of the citizens. They also complained that the Constitution failed to guarantee individual liberties in
This is due to the inalienable nature of rights that Americans believed they were born with, such as the right to property. Due to this, the Federalist movement could not be argued to pursue a liberal agenda as their aim was to remove the dominance of state sovereignty and instead, install an elected national government. I would argue that it is a stretch to suggest that the Federalists feared the power of the state legislators, but rather they chose to not underestimate its role. The creation of political conventions where the common man voted, sought to sidestep any potential resistance that the states could have applied. By choosing to create an entirely new political structure in the form of the national conventions, the Republicans were being proactive in their strategy of eliminating the opposition, rather than reacting to their fear of the state legislators.
Although Monarchy was out of the question, there was still the decision between direct democracy and republican. The idea of "majority rules" was flawed in the sense that it could easily become unbalanced. If one party was able to bring together enough votes to make it 51% to 49%, they would win. James Madison stated that if Rhode Island were to become its own confederacy that, "...the insecurity of rights under the popular form of government within such narrow limits would be displayed by such reiterated oppressions of factious majorities..." The government would be unjust and the majorities could be come factious. Instead of having majority rule, the 2/3 rule is stated in Article V. This allows
This of course is predicated on the belief that the public’s opinion will influence the actions of their representatives in Congress since representatives want to be reelected. In modern use, particularly with television and looser campaign finance regulations, Presidents now are more sending a message to party leadership or interest groups, letting them either take up the issue in Congress or mobilize the people. Of the powers a President has, the power of influence; especially in modern, media-driven society, is paramount. Although another aspect of Presidential power is the idea of executive privilege, or being able to keep all conversations the President has private. This is perhaps one of the more controversial powers given to the President because it begs the question of how a President can be held responsible if the people don’t know what they are doing?
Without the written rights the government could take them away. People were scared of a new Constitution that gave the Federal Government too much power and that they would end up with the type of government they just fought to separate from. They worried that the Washington government would abuse the people’s rights just like the British did.
Another component was that of the rights of the states, and the citizens. The anti-federalist opposed this on the grounds that their rights will be quashed by the strong central governments. Which is the reasoning behind the reason for needing the Bill of Rights. The Federalist responded with the system of checks and balances. This would help to form a framework from amassing too much power centered onto one single branch of government.
In the Second Treatise of Government, John Locke argues that citizens have the right of revolution when the government acts against their interests. To Locke, revolution was an obligation, however, many other philosophers do not view it that way. Edmund Burke, for example, believed that gradual change was better than all out revolution. Other philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes believed that the people need to obey their government due to a ‘social contract’ between them and the state. This essay will argue that a right to revolution needs to be granted to citizens in the case of a tyrannical government because it is the government’s duty to serve its citizens, and if it fails to do so, the people need to replace it with an alternate form of
Even though George Washington made it a big point in his farewell address, about how political parties would cause problems, the beliefs about how our young new country should have been ran was very broad and different and so it was inevitable that the different parties would form. While the Federalists believed that the highly educated businessmen should represent the people and run the government, the Democrat-Republicans thought a very different opinion, that the country should use its citizens to make decisions about the nation 's government and to have equal
The Federalist system of our government requires there be a sharing of power between branches, which is very much enforced with the Electoral College. There are speculations that with the abolishment of the Electoral College, the Federalist system would be lost with it. The Electoral college also helps to promote the two party system, and while some people may take issue with this, it is a way of creating stability in our government. With the distribution of power the Electoral College promotes, this allows the minority to be represented. However, there is a big issue in that the majority vote is not properly reflected by the Electoral College.
An individual vote should be counted. (another word for according) to the 14th amendment that states “”, meaning that the citizens of the United States need “fair representation”. Because of the Electoral College, it is not (another word for happning). This (another word for misinterpretation) has been (another word for proven) in at least two elections and people are getting (another word for fed up) with the failure of democracy. The Declaration of Independence states, “Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government”.