Why do we see variation in first-term president 's corruption? Previous literature of regional comparative politics only provide limited accounts of presidential corruption. In this paper, I provide a theory that presidential term-limit matters with regard to first-term president 's corruption. I argue that when a president is elected at the first time, a president who is under single-term presidency---presidency under which a president cannot be reelected due to constitutional limit---is more likely to perpetrate corruption than under multi-term presidency---presidency under which a president can be reelected at least one more term. It is attributed to whether reelection incentive exists.
Perhaps if this presidential candidate were elected as President of The United States, then this fantasy world of common motivation, and joint efforts could become a reality. Although this is very unlike as mentioned, most people of America are too worried about self gain and self interest, and the facade of society places a biased view on anything linked to communism. Too many immediately reject any idea of communism. It can be seen that not significant work was done in the world in “Anthem” and that extreme forms of communism are likely to fail, but a less extreme form like socialism could possibly save the world from corruption, and could bring the world back together as
A professor of political science once said that “the Electoral College violates political equality” (Edwards 453). In a democracy, all citizens of a nation should be equal in every way. The Electoral College’s violation of political equality diminishes one of the most important staples of a democratic government. An even worse scenario can occur in the Electoral College in the case of a tie, in which “the election is thrown to the House of Representatives, where state delegations vote on the president” (Plumer 457). When this occurs, the general public’s votes are cast aside and
Duterte presents himself as the crusader that goes against media and other political heads calling them out as corrupt people or the elites that are the enemy of the masses and that he is the righteous one to the people. Yet the issue of populism is not how this method is used, but how it’s used for. Political ideals that are righteously wrong that are used to make the population believe or perceive as their right, twisting the true intention of these politicians to make the populous believe that they are on their side. Professor in School of Public and International Affairs Cas Mudde would answer on populism being a political issue, “Yes, populism is an important feature of contemporary politics, but not all anti-establishment politics is populism and populist parties are not just about populism.
Now the Supreme Court is deciding whether or not it will allow millions of undocumented immigrants to apply for programs that make them eligible for work authorization and benefits through the programs by the President. The President can make executive actions that effect the regulations of the governments issues, when he sees that congress is not taking action and that is what Obama did. The founding father made it difficult to create laws, they know if a person or group of people is given too much power then the government could be more easily manipulated so why do they want to over step an executive order, it that is why it was created
In Thomas Jefferson’s letter to Philip Mazzei, he describes the “Aristocratic Party”, he points out the shift of the people in power. He recounts how the ruling body is now mostly controlled by men who don’t support republican ideals, these are the federalist. They are shifting the away from what the war was trying to achieve and instead looking towards Britain. Only the legislative branch still holds the ideals of the revolution and the need for liberty. While the rest of the ruling party forgot what they were fighting for and many were enticed by the treacherous British.
The electoral college is the way the president is picked, but should it remain that way? The electoral college has too many ways to go wrong and as time goes on we 'll just see more of them, and in many ways, it smacks the idea of democracy in the face. It has picked candidates contrary to popular opinion and gives states disproportionate amounts of power in picking the president, along with other problems. In a country to supposed to stand for freedom and each citizen having a voice, how is that possible when people in one state are given more power over choosing the president than someone in a bigger state. As was previously stated, it gives certain states more power and makes the votes of people in certain states worth more than a vote
To be clear, the two numbers do not necessarily indicate causation, and there could be several other factors attributed. However, what cannot be debated is the same Pew Research Center study found a majority (Both, Democrats and Republicans) believe money has a greater influence on politics today, and the high cost of presidential campaigns discourages good candidates. (Desilver & Van Kessel, 2015). The sentiment of voters is clear, big money has permeated campaigns to an unacceptable degree. To illustrate, Super PACs made $65 million in expenditures in 2010, $608 million in 2012, and $339 for the 2014 mid-term elections (Desilver & Van Kessel, 2015).
The concept of divided government means that one political party can control the executive branch, the presidency, while another controls the legislative branch, congress. Divided government is primarily caused by voter turnout in presidential elections versus voter turnout in non-presidential elections. Presidential elections have a higher turnout of voters who vote for a single party while non-presidential elections have a significantly low voter turnout. “The majority of voters who turn out to the polls tend to be those who dislike the president 's new policies or are extremely politically engaged. Those who feel just okay about the government aren 't likely to show up at polls” (Rainer Benz).
During the birth of our government, our country’s leaders promised our democracy would be the government of the people, by the people, and for the people. (Bernie Sanders) In our current society, it has been said that our political campaign finance system is corrupt and primarily controlled by billionaires, wealthy donors, and corporations. Many say our government has strayed from the original democracy that our country was built upon. Despite this claim, if monetary restrictions for campaigning were set then there would be controversy due to wealthy supporters and corporations wanting to support political candidates. Millionaires and wealthy organizations might come together to form super PACs.