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.
The Senate is composed of two senators (representatives) from each state this gives everyone a more equal opportunity to get what they want. Although larger states have more of an advantage in the House of Representatives the other branches have the ability to keep the legislative branch in check if there were to be any tyranny occurring. The Constitution guards against tyranny in 4 ways: federalism, separation of power, checks and balances, and large and small states. Without these things America would be under tyranny. Allowing someone to have all the power is dangerous for a nation in the sense that they will be most likely be making decisions to benefit themselves as opposed to the whole country’s needs.
Democracy is a government of people which the power rests on the elected agents under an electoral vote. Abraham Lincoln phrased democracy is a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people." Some say that Democracy and freedom are mutual words in that section, but the two are not synonymous. It’s true that democracy is a set of idea on freedom and liberty, although it also consists of procedures which were constructed throughout the time. Because Democracy in short is the division of freedom, we can identify that government, equality of people and human rights as democratic.
Democracy is a political concept and form of the government, where all people are supposed to have equal voices in shaping policy, typically expressed through the vote of the representatives. Historically, the term democracy means “rule by the people” from the Greek demos – “people” and kratos – “rule”. Democracy is exercised as choosing and replacing the government members through the elections, participation of the citizens in politics and civic life, protection of the human rights of the citizens and providing the rule of law, where it is said that all the citizens have equal rights (Shah). Unfortunately, we cannot actually say that democracy is a pure and perfect system because it regularly faces different kinds of problems such as political distrust, corruption, oligarchy, political bureaucracy, discrimination, poor representation, election anomalies as low turnouts and many others. “Is democracy actually in crisis?
A related beneficial institution in the American system is the jury. While juries may not always be the best means of attaining justice, they serve a very positive political function of forcing the citizens to think about other people 's affairs and educating them in the use of their freedom. For these reasons, Tocqueville believes that the jury system is one of the most effective means of popular education. Much like the jury system, the administrative decentralization which allows for local self-government is crucial as a means to keep liberty alive by allowing the citizens to exercise it frequently. The existence of local liberties is one of the most significant differences between America and France.
However, the Electoral College was originally founded because the delegates did not believe that the people were educated enough to make a good choice. Therefore, the power lies with the electors of each state. Even though the debate over the Electoral College will continue, it is clear that it should be abolished because it does not represent the
The presence of constitution is also important to while comparing Direct Democracy and liberal Democracy structure. Constitution defines the principles and rules governing any political system. Constitution is Sometimes present in Direct Democracy. Another similarity between the two are that the citizens have the power of voting . The citizens in both democracies have the power to vote and have rights They elect their leaders through voting thus there is self empowerment of people However there are differences between the two democracies which are , in direct democracy people decide all the policies directly whereas in liberal democracy the government is based o the concept of elected individuals.
For example, the website “governmentvs.com” states many ideas about the people getting the right to speak out. It states “Majority rules, people’s rights, power of voting…” This sets a democracy to a form of government where it favors the people. The citizens have control and some power of what goes on in their own country. The article also states, “People have freedom and power of voting and choosing what they want.” The main idea about a democracy is having the people have rights to speak up in the government. This system favors and encourages the citizens to feel as if they are a part of the government.
In the Authoritarian style of government on the other hand, has many benefits, advantages and like any other type of government, has its own disadvantages and weaknesses. I remember in our previous discussions, we talked about Hobbes’ state of nature which states that a person is naturally selfish and that without a government, there would be total chaos so in result, man agrees to be a part of a government. In this sense, man would agree to be under that government and would agree to be served. It is not assured that there would not be chaos if one joins a government but through this form of government, war would be lessened – and it could be render void. Under this type of government, there are benefits and advantages as well as restrictions.
Now, the choice is up to you. All the evidence is laid out. All the claims have been said. Democracies are more efficient than monarchies because democracies make sure that people retain some power and know what is going on in their government, democracies make sure that not only one person gets all the power, and democracy lets you choose representatives to speak on behalf for your state/community. In conclusion, there is enough provided enough evidence, to inform you, on whether democracy, or monarchy is the most efficient system.
One advantage is that it eliminates victory based on solely on populations. This gives power to states no matter what size rather than the population of the state. If the Electoral College was not in place this will lead to campaign solely on the big states rather than all. The Electoral College will continue to create and maintain a two party system. It allows for some continuity and stability for the current government.
Madison believes that large republics are best able to avoid the dangers of faction. This is because at large republics, there are more experiences to share and unity is better valued. Also because the majority rules in republics, but the minorities ideas are still taken into consideration. In Federalist Paper 51, James Madison is explaining that the purpose of the essay is so that people have a better understanding on how the structure of the proposed government makes liberty possible. He is trying to justify that no one branch of government should have too much power in selecting confederates of the other branches and that the citizens should select their president.
One reason that the framers of the constitution included the Electoral College is because they believed people will only vote for people in their own states and basically play favorites. However, in modern democracy it is evident that this system no longer benefits entirely the people of the states’. It must be modified because the restrictions that vary state to state through each election is now unnecessary in today’s society. In a presidential election an electoral vote should count the same as a popular vote no matter the circumstances. The states that remain mutual in a presidential candidacy election, where the populations are evenly divided causes an issue of winning the state
It allows factions to be a part of the government while controlling its effects. A faction is a group of people that have "some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." Madison tries to avoid the prejudices of American citizens to be divide into a battle field between the rich and the poor. He sets out a form of government which represents the people by having them elect those who govern. This system is mentioned to protect citizens from tyranny and prevent majorities from taking control.
However, the legislative branch of the new government proposed in the Constitution is able to control the malignant effects of factions because the representatives are able to pass legislation that affects large portions of the nation instead of individuals. Madison then states that a pure democracy, in which ordinary citizens govern themselves, are not able to control the effects of factions, but a republic, in which citizens elect representatives to govern, is able to. The reason that republics can control the effects of political parties is because the representatives have to consider the good of the whole nation; Madison hopes that their patriotism will override their temporary interests. Furthermore, representatives, given that they are elected into office, should be men of good morals and intelligence; Madison believes these men of this caliber are more fit to govern a country than average citizens. In conclusion, Madison discusses in Federalist 10 what factions are and how they work, and why a republic is the best government to combat the negative effects of