This allows the politicians to select one representative from each district to represent the majority of the voters in that district. This can benefit a political party because it allows them to have more seats in the house. “Eliminating gerrymandering would not by itself dramatically increase the competitiveness of house and state….between the two major political parties” (Mann, Thomas
The argument of those who believe this way has many components. First, the Electoral College is felt to be an outdated system which is no longer necessary for our elections (The Electoral College). Opponents of the College admit that yes, at one point in time, the Electoral College was a necessary component in electing the President of the Union. However, technology has made it so that the information necessary to make informed decisions about voting is available to the majority of voters (The Electoral College). Voters today are more informed than they were back when the constitution was written and, because of that, placing the final vote in the hands of electors rather than the people is unnecessary.
Previous times in the government when corruption occured caused the Republicans to split and fight against each other. This time, it created more problems for an already corrupt government. The period after Garfield’s term, people wanted to change politics with a civil service reform. This reform allowed officials to join office who were qualified, which made becoming part of the office a lot more fair and equal for everyone. This did cause struggles in the beginning, but eventually paid off in the future by creating more equal politics.
The constitution mandates certain duties of the justice system—adequate representation, the right to an attorney, etc.—which require public funding. Today, relevant stakeholders petition for an increase in that funding because the current budget is inadequate. If the current justice system is deficient financially, imagine the cost for a system without plea bargaining—It would require an astronomical increase in public funding. The final reason, is that plea bargaining aids mutual interests.
Reagan proposed that more than 4,000 jobs be cut from the state within 18 months. The California economy had moved into politics of abundance; services the people began to expect. According to the text, all of this is what attracted more people to come to California, but eventually, the negatives started to outweigh the positives. Reagan, therefore, tried to reverse these policies and “declared small is beautiful” (Lawrence, 33).
In contrast, it could be argued that Kasich’s plan to spend $102 billion in defense is a waste of money and we could defend our country with less spending. “We must rebuild our defenses while leveraging the strengths of our allies in order to effectively challenge the capabilities of our enemies. We can ensure that scarce resources reach the troops who need them most by streamlining Pentagon bureaucracy and transforming procurement processes to get new weapons systems into the field on time and on budget” ( The
By doing so, this contributes to prove that Abraham Lincoln’s statement is true. What must be taken away from this today is that power can change people and not always for the better. For example, during presidential elections, some presidential candidates may promise a lot of things to their supporters that make them sound like the perfect choice for president but then once they become president and gain all the power their true self comes out, and they don’t keep all the promises they
Many people feel that American society is too competitive. Does competition lead to better products and results, or does it lead to a focus on winning at all costs? I disagree with this statement, because without it there would be no elections, no war, and no freedom. Being competitive is a big help in many different scenarios, competitiveness is a big role in many different things such as war. Without competitiveness, we would lose many battles.
if state colleges were free,taxes would skyrocket and where would the colleges get the money to upgrade their facilities, or the money to pay their taxes now like i said before they should be lower. Not alot lower but lower so some of the geniuses in the world can be able to go out get jobs and do the stuff they 're good at.me im ok with the prices now but if they were lower i think i would have no problem with any bit of it. But still i don 't think they should be free despite popular opinion which i honestly think those people understand what would happen if colleges became free. More than likely the colleges would turn out pretty
Elections matter, especially local ones where it is possible to have some access to the decision makers and their decisions. But on a larger scale, it’s all about the money, which buys name recognition, which determines popularity, which is what elections are about. Values, ideas, interests even (except as determined by money), come a distant second, third, etc. If the Democratic Party signs an iron-clad contract to change electoral law to provide for Instant Runoff / Preference Voting elections with proportional representation in local, state and national legislatures, the Greens and other Third Party, plus Independent voters might agree to vote for
When President George W. Bush was reelected in 2004, the people who voted him thought that he would be able to stimulate the economy and create jobs. However, once the voters realized that he was unable to run the country as productively as they wanted him to do, his popularity faded. This resulted in Congress and President Bush popularity votes dropping to all-time lows of 38 percent and 28 percent respectively (Milakovich & Gordon, p.8). These numbers resulted in voters believing they should vote democratic as opposed to Republican, in which added to the victory of Barack Obamas election to the
Thus, the belief that the polarisation of congress must have spawned from an increasingly divided electorate is too simplistic. Fiorina, Abrams and Pope (2006) alternately suggest that rather than ideological divisions increasing within the U.S. population, ideological consistency is increasing on a personal level for voters. This belief is supported by a decrease in split-ticket voting in congressional elections as constituents are now more likely consider their political views to be compatible with those of one specific party. In effect, this would cause conservative Democratic voters and liberal Republican voters to switch their allegiances, the likes of which did occur during the southern realignment that began in the
The number of “full time” legislators had dropped from 44 down to 4 as a result of these term limits according to supporters of term limits. Some analysts have argued that as a result of the proposals there was a substantial reduction in campaign expenditure in the three general elections in California after 1990 as had been claimed by supporters before the passage of these
With term limit there is less time for a member of congress be corrupted by reelection campaigns and work harder on the issues that the people the represent wish to have worked on, and if not eventually even with reelection the will be out of congress. I believe term limits would correlate with higher congressional approval ratings, and I also believe higher congressional approval ratings would cause the voting population to be more passionate on who represents them because the know there is a much higher chance of their representative actually representing them, causing higher voter turnout. This is a succinct summary of why I believe congressional term limits should be the next constitutional amendment. I will end this essay noting that a much deeper examination must be done on this subject nationally and culturally so that we the people can formulate an answer to keep The Republic from becoming “ The
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). During the current election cycle, Super PACs have already raised a total of $313.5 million and spent $73.2 million (Desilver