The quality of judges would without a doubt increase if they were appointed. However, I do not agree with the idea of judges being appointed. When looking at the partisan aspect you notice several possible issues with one issue being, is that individual the right person to do the job. Partisan election of judges allows for an individual that may not be as qualified for the job to be elected into the position. Nevertheless the partisan election of judges gives the voters what they want based on party affiliation along with qualifications.
On the other hand, Cornell explains that this “will of the people” was often contorted on both sides as political debate. Thus, the “dissenting tradition” was not more than who was more qualified to run the government through countless debates and public appeal. As explained by Cornell,”Each side expended enormous energy crafting appeals to persuade citizens that it was better qualified to represent the will of the people” (Cornell 21). Thus, the Anti-Federalists were using the people to debate themselves in the public sphere to gain the will of the common man and avoid the evil corrupt centralized authority.
Voter ID laws are two sided, but most Americans feel that it is necessary to prevent voter fraud. Republicans feel that an individual should already have a state ID because this is required by so many government agencies. Unfortunately, the Democrats are the ones to be most likely affected due to their voters’ economic status, disabilities and age. Whereas, Democrats believe that it is a tactic to defer their supporters from voting.
They also have a higher expectation of privacy for themselves that comes from not bearing the weight of a campaign. Lastly, the downside of elections is the fear that judges would vote with reelection in mind instead of the law. The elevation to an almost celebrity status is a lot of pressure. There are many expectations and people to please, including campaign contributors.
Secondly It could spread untruthful news very quickly . Also If there is ever a flaw it could be recorded in an unsuitable manner. Finally anything that is shared to the public through media cannot be undone. Overall the consequences of making this decision of creating media to be the fourth branch of government outweigh the positive effects. However it is ironic that the same consequences could potentially happen without it officially being a branch of government as they would be as an official branch of government.(Www.markedbyteachers.com/university-degree/social-studies/is-the-media-the-fourth-branch-of-power-discuss.html)
However, its main flaw is not confer on the designated meeting a true representation of the electorate. Cutting by riding makes possible "gerrymandering" to eliminate candidates "undesirable" who must be many more votes than in the neighboring riding to get elected. The proportional voting system is fairer and more democratic but it is criticized for generating government instability. The parties that are able to govern often implement alliances or coalitions with other political parties to obtain a majority in the House of Representatives.
There are positive and negative ways to reframe attacks by campaign to have less impact on voters. The traditional wisdom shared by some political advisers, that negative ads “work” is an overgeneralization, while some negative ads work others do not. Denials are seen as the best option available strategy for countering campaign, this is where the facts are seen clearly on the viewer’s side and there are not as much space for clarification; additionally, most attacks have some genuine basis even though they can be seen as false at some point and are not always
Deliberation is a luxury to which only political elites have access because powerful elites represent structurally dominant social segments. Deliberation is also always structurally biased, in favor of those with greater resources and power. These points lead to an antidemocratic appeal in the undergirding principles of deliberative democracy
Good use provides great happiness and profit for the citizens, but when used improperly, the citizens suffer great damage. Therefore, we need to pay more attention to the politics and the state, and to the politicians who are currently operating the state, and to focus on the way they operate. If they do wrong politics, we must go out and block them and go the right way. If the citizens leave politicians politics bad, we will have the damage completely. A double-edged sword is a great benefit for us.
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.
I mean this in the sense were it will be hard to prove that this act does in fact invade the privacy of individuals. Critics, believe that since intelligence can be gathered secretly with little oversight, officials can easily abuse this power and can falsely charge innocent
have a political appeal since it had a synthesis of both liberal and conservative ends. The wrong elements of the reform that they also thought had a political appeal were strongly opposed by interest groups, leading to a subsequent failure of the reform (Hoffman, 2011, para. 33). The greatest undoing of the Clinton’s administration was they were overambitious by simultaneously trying to secure universal coverage, transforming the sector into a managed care, controlling costs, regulation of the private insurance market and also changing the financing of the sector through an employer mandate.
Madison talks about how the government and people are connect and the ties that bind them together, but the main goal of Federalist 51 is how to divide the government and how to keep it divided. Federalist #10 1- The one big thing is that our government is too unstable. People believe that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of the two rival parties. Also things were not decided to the right of justice they were decided to the needs of the minority party.
Gerrymandering restrictions is likely to be a key topic of debate for the Supreme Court as partisan lines have tested the constitutionality of the act. While this process of redrawing boundary lines has been around for a long time, it is not the same that it once was. The act of gerrymandering and redrawing boundaries has become more of a drastic partisan act in the modern election world than ever before because of technology. The 1986 Supreme Court ruling in Davis v. Bandemer declared partisan gerrymandering for electoral advantage justiciable under the United States Constitution. The asymmetry standard in testing for gerrymandering states that the act needs to exhibit intentions that partisan gerrymandering would be recognized for its given distribution of popular votes, if parties switch who holds the popular vote and if the number of seats in a district would change unequally based on Supreme Court cases Vieth v. Jubelirer and LULAC v. Perry.