They would be overshadowed. The numbers would reflect the population values versus what the people as a whole want. I remember the craziness that came with the Al Gore/ George W. Bush Campaign in 2000. It took days and recounts to accurately find out who the new President Of The United States would be.
For example, "As a college student, I wrote my senior thesis on the impact of television on the balance of power among the three branches of government ... the growing importance of visual rhetoric and body language over logic and reason.” (Gore 5) This quote is necessary because it give the readers a little background of the full extent of his research and experience on the topic, leading to make his claim sound. He was glad he had that research in a younger age because it helped him realize what 's going on around him the younger age as well as when we got
In the heated discussion of college education, one controversial issue has been if the Pell Grant program for inmates would be beneficial as a whole. On the one hand, many in congress argues that a college degree will reduce the recidivism of inmates. On the other hand, some college students contend that it will reduce the amount of aid they get from Pell Grant. My own view is that there should be very strict criteria and that only a small percentage per year be given this great opportunity to receive a college education.
By making the bold claim that he can make “real change” with his policies, Sanders shows the citizens of the United States that he is the most suitable candidate for presidency.
The electoral college keeps the federal system of government. Our founding fathers spent hours debating and creating our current system of government and election systems. The federal system has lasted america hundreds of years without fail. Many say current government officials should not mess with a seemingly flawless system. The current election systems ensures the people have a say in who is elected president but do not hold all of the power.
With television being a powerful source of persuasion, presidential candidates began to use it as a campaign tactic in 1952. After witnessing that it was a successful tactic they have continued to use it until the most recent presidential campaign in 2012. Over the course of all these years the American people have seen all kinds of presidential campaign ads. Some were plain and boring following the norm of having the candidate talk straight from a podium, while others took creativity to another level and did not even show the candidate in the add but just a little girl and images of the atomic bomb. The ads also differed in levels of positivism and negativism; some only focused on the good qualities of the candidate and the actions he would
According to the experience of my parents and older relatives, they had a clear distinction between the word public and private universities. They always studied in the public universities since these universities were affordable and they were supposed to be funded by the government. If we compare the concept of public and private universities of both the era we can find a huge difference between these two concepts now. Now a days public universities are charging same as the private universities. Education is not even affordable by most of the citizens of America since their yearly income is nearly equal to a semester fee of a university.
Williams suggests that the founders thought that the Electoral College was a sensible plan, but things don’t always work out how they should (28). It is a relic of America’s predemocratic past when leaders were scared of having too much power over the people (Klinker, McClellan 1). Congressional Digest suggests that we are stuck in a time warp (31). We still rely on a horse-and-buggy election system in the age of the internet (Congressional Digest 31). Congressional Digest points out the fact that voters today know more about the candidates than they did 200 years ago (19).
I would never vote for Donald Trump. Elections are a big deal, which is why it is important to know who you’re voting for. My first choice for President would be Hillary Clinton. She has a lot of political experience, from being the first lady to the Secretary of State, and a New York Senator.
Since the inception of our constitution in 1787, there has only been 4 elections where the Electoral College has allowed the future president-elect candidate to win the election, despite losing the popular vote. 4/57 elections is probably something that political scientists don’t lose sleep over, but it is a topic that is worth mentioning and discussing, especially after the controversial presidential election in 2000. From my point of view, I believe that the method we use in selecting our presidents is flawed and ineffective for a couple of reasons. First, the Electoral College has far fewer votes than the American people, yet their vote has a lot more meaning. With 538 delegates representing the Electoral College, it is unfair and inequitable to the millions of people who devote their time and energy to stand in long
“The Second Party System reflected and shaped the political, social, economic, and cultural currents of the Jacksonian Era until succeeded by the Third Party System in 1854.” (Boundless.com) The Second party lasted from about 1828 to 1854 in the United States. In 1824, there were no political parties in the presidential election.
The democrats have stayed with this system more so than the republicans because Nixon and Reagan buried their democrat rivals in the general elections and won by landslides so, they decided that when they have a candidate that they know will not stand up well against the rival party, that they have the ability to impact who gets nominated and possibly field a more successful candidate. If I would have been asked this question prior to this election, I probably would have said “Get rid of the superdelgates,” but now I’m not 100% sure. With a candidate like Trump, you see that he has a great voter following, more than anyone thought would ever take him seriously. Imagine if the Democratic Party had a candidate like Trump (some see Bernie Sanders as a “grassroots activist” in the Democratic Party although Bernie is not emotionally and negatively divisive). Trump may take the popular vote but, he may not get the “unpledged" delegates (Republican Party) or enough total delegates to get the nomination and for me, that would be a “pro” for the “super or “unpledged” delegate
Following the recent presidential election of Donald Trump, many individuals have been up in arms over whether or not the Electoral College is a fair way to elect the President of the United States. When Hillary Clinton won the national popular vote, yet Donald Trump became president, there were many questions brought up, as to why the Electoral College is still a running system. The Electoral College was made at the Constitutional Convention of 1787, by the Founding Fathers of America. The Founding Fathers held many meetings to decide on a fair way to elect the President. They thought of using a popular vote, but soon realized it would cause too many problems.
Most presidential elections are a competition between two respective parties, but in 1912, the election became a four candidate fight. The true competition existed primarily between two candidates, Theodore Roosevelt (TR), running for what was once legal-- a third term, for the newly formed Progressive party, and Woodrow Wilson, former governor of New Jersey, for the Democrats. The remaining candidates, Eugene V. Debs, running a the fourth time for the Socialist party, and Wilson Howard Taft, running for re-election with the Republican party, stood little chance against their competitors. Looking at the results and numbers only, one might like to think that the election was insignificant and a blowout win by Woodrow Wilson, but taking all the