Is Gerrymandering a Controversial Topic? Gerrymandering is a process where the ruling political party uses the map of their state to draw lines that create voting districts in favor of their party. The result of this is that it doesn’t reflect the voters political views. For about 200 years the government has used gerrymandering during political elections and it continues to be used today (King, Elizabeth) . But recently gerrymandering has become more controversial because people feel that it has taken away their rights as a voter and it swings the votes to one side by a big percentage.
Carters “Malaise Speech” did not help the American public. The American public knew what was wrong with the country they were living it every day. The President’s job is to fix the issues not lecture the American public how it is there fault. The transfer of blame because of infighting between political parties is not necessarily good
He came into office at a time where the government was viewed as corrupted due to the previous presidents, such as Ford and Nixon. Carter came into office wanting to fix this point of view of the government and bring America back to the top. He failed miserably. He wanted to make politics more transparent and he wanted to control everything he could. He expected for congress to help him with this.
This can be proven with the evidence that "in todays times most people aren 't interested in politics or care to vote as they think their vote wont change anything". This demonstrates that more people will become intrigued by politics as if voting was made mandatory then people will have to vote therefore it will make them become interested in politics. This can also be proven with the evidence that nearly 16 million registered electors didn 't vote. This demonstrates that more people will become intrigued by politics as people cant be bothered voting anymore they have gave up hope on things changing. Therefore i think we should make voting compulsory in the UK as if more people become intrigued in politics then this country could become a better place and people could become more
For the establishment to actively contemplate and strategize an avenue to change convention rules, to take delegation votes away from Donald Trump is an egregious insult to the American public who voted in the primary. The actions of the party, to include those delegates who conspired to turn those votes over to a different candidate, who by the way did not exist, sadly make the Democratic Party appear to they be the party of the American public. Yes, a significant percentage of voters think the Democratic Party is corrupt, however, even contemplating a method to alter or reallocate those votes designated for Donald Trump screams of the parties contempt for the American
How can those running against the already elected officials win against them? One of the first things that can be done to lower incumbency rates is to better inform the voter population about the congressmen running. Many do not know the people who are running or the values they stand for. So by being not being informed, people just end up voting for
By the late 1970s the leadership of the Democratic and Republican Parties, along with some political scholars, began to complain that the limitations on campaign contributions to political parties were marginalizing the role of the parties in the campaign process, and was contributing to declining levels of voter turnout. Absent party discipline, there is no mechanism for voters to hold parties accountable for the actions of their members, and this limits control of the government by the public.In 1979, the Federal Election Commission issued new regulations that permitted national political parties to accept unlimited donations for so-called party-building activities, including voter
Status Quo & Policy Alternatives Currently, sponsors of ballot initiative campaigns are not limited to a particular amount, which affords leverage such as expertise in public opinion polling, computer-targeted mailing, and television advertising to the wealthier party. To combat the defects of this form of direct democracy, reformers have proposed several policy alternatives. One alternative is to provide better information. According to a 2002 state commission and recent report by the Center for Governmental Studies, roughly a third of initiatives since 2000 have more than 5000 words, which is too long and too confusing for the majority of voters (Mathews and Paul, 173). Another alternative is to raise restrictions on the process (e.g.
The main criticism that “the current two-party system gives too much power to the extremists in each party” (Wheelan, 2013, para. 2). When people are chosen by the party to run, in many cases they represent the extremist views held and become the mascot for the party. The current system is skewed so moderates, the people some say are essential to politics, are not chosen because they do not represent the party strongly enough. These extremist candidates help to discourage education of the intricacies of individual issues because voters are forced into accepting how the party views the issue, due to either voting due to the candidate 's party affiliation, or being forced into choosing the extremist that comes closest to their own personal beliefs.
One of the biggest worries when people talk about compulsory voting is the fear of uneducated votes randomly swinging polls all around in no orderly fashion. Compulsory voter supporters argue that the abstention option is all that is needed to solve this problem. However, research conducted by Trevor Burrus found that between twenty-nine and thirty-six percent of previous non-voters who chose to not abstain could not tell you who they voted for upon leaving the polling place. Compulsory voting creates a stigma to make people want to cast a vote and make their vote matter if they’re going to be forced to come out anyway, this causes people to not abstain and just pick any candidate or the one they have heard their name the most. Another commonly used tactic to cleanse the polls is to put a fictitious name on the ballot to grab at least a chunk of the uneducated or random votes.
It also protects smaller states by balancing the voting power from each state giving everyone representation. With the Electoral College, each state in given an initial 2 electoral votes before giving them the states to complete the 538 vote total. This should create an optimal election where everyone’s opinion is can is treat evenly instead of only using the ideology of the largest state. USA Today states that, “A popular vote contest involving multiple candidates could produce a winner with, say, only 35% of the vote, provoking an outcry to create a runoff process involving the top two vote-getters.” Incidence like riots, voter fraud, and voter recount will be more reamped because a third of the population would be making a decision for an entire country. With the Electoral College, the responsibility of
Voter turnout in American has the tendency to be increasingly low. A large portion of the United States population that is eligible to vote does not take part in election day. Many factors have the potential of contributing to the low voter turnout; however, some theories stand out. In America, election voting takes place on a Tuesday and requires the voters to register. Most Americans eligible to vote obtain a full time job and simply can not find the time to vote.
It, for the most part, takes away the ability to vote the president. The Electoral College was made in a period when votes were harder to gather and number. With everything done electronically today, a straightforward mainstream vote would suffice. I don 't trust the Electoral College was ever implied as an approach to maintain a strategic distance from the mainstream vote comes about. It is just an obsolete framework that ought to be discarded.
All of these issues contribute to the deadlock of American government. Contributing to the deadlock of congress is the agenda of individual politicians. In the case of many elected officials, it is not the main objective to do best for their people, but
Voters respond when they have choices between candidates, the bigger their differences the more people are likely to go out and vote. In this type of circumstance it is highly impossible for an individual to go out and vote when as an individual we have no knowledge whatsoever over politics. This in my opinion happens to be another good reason as to why voting turnout in Texas is so low. Although it may be hard to believe there are so many individuals out there who have no common knowledge on the candidates who are running in the elections, which gives them a good reason not to go out and vote. People want to go out and vote for a candidate they have much information over and know what their capabilities are, and this is very difficult for an individual who may not even know who is running in the elections or what is going on in the political