Many argue that our congress does whatever they can to make it look like they’re all together and uniform, but really they are completely broken in a way that is not easy to fix. Deadlock can be caused by a lack of Congressional moderates, who are the people who vote on an issue regardless of their affiliation. There are currently six of them but that number is subjected to decrease. Another reason of gridlock could also be gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is a strategic way of making sure party members get what they want when it comes to voting.
Many historians have also made the same exact claims. She explains, “The book's tone and presentation betray a journalistic obsession with “the scoop.” Getting the scoop can be the life’s blood of journalism. It does not work so well for writing history, which is not always (or almost ever, really) about discovering things previously unknown.” She then goes on to state that he did not find out information that was entirely unknown. His writing resembles that of a journalist who is telling others of a scandal unknown. She then goes on to speak about the “four percent” that Wienceks brings up, Wienceks believes Thomas Jefferson was talking about the profit he makes when a salve is born.
New historicist believe that the writing of history is merely an interpretation, not an absolute fact, other than the big facts we know such as who was president at the time or who won a certain battle. New historicist also believe that history is neither linear nor progressive. The reason for this is because while people can have goals history does not, and also defining what progression is changes from person to person. These theories can are also beliefs of cultural criticism; however, cultural criticism focuses more in political support of oppressed groups. Summary of the Short Story "Rocket Night" by Alexander Weinstein tells the story of Rose Hill 's Rocket Night through an unnamed narrator.
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.
Many people all around the country probably won’t certainly agree with the author of A More Perfect Constitution by Larry Sabato. Larry Sabato main idea was that the United State Constitution was outdated and needed to be reform somehow. He believed a change to the Constitution will going to be really hard due to the massive number of traditional political conservatives that the country had. Sabato explain that these conservatives’ people will oppose to the idea of different view of the Constitution by saying “the Constitution is just good as it is”. The conservatives’ support only their views as the Constitution was just fine the way it is, and it was original because that was the intent of the founders in how to interpret the Constitution.
This is important because it keeps the nation’s rules simple, orderly, and understandable for the average citizen. Furthermore the Mayflower Compact stated that laws should be made for the general good. In emerging governments this tends to get glossed over. Opting instead to enact laws that will boost their GDP over their country’s general happiness. A happy nation, however, is easier to run, as the natural tendency will be to trust the government, rather than fear or despise it.
The authors of the text also look at the interaction between race, region, and movement when looking at the evolution of American politics. As party elites and political activists have found a wider partisan divide in issues, the ordinary American still harbors the same general outlook on social and political issues as in the past. Despite or rather in spite of this, Americans are showing an increased lack of confidence in their government and elected officials. This lack of confidence over career politicians has fueled actions such as the election of Donald Trump who campaigned as a successful businessman apart from the ordinary politics of
The presidents that were in office were also corrupt, when Grant was president, he had a few scandals while in office Credit Mobilier Scandal, Whiskey Ring Scandal, and the Trading Post Scandal. In these he wasn’t very honest and he wasn’t looking into the best interest of the country. And a few other presidents also did the same they all entered with the best intentions and then so many things happen along the way. In the Progressive Era Theodore Roosevelt was the president in part of the time and during that time he tried to as honest as he could and he stayed that way till the end of his presidency. He wanted to be honest to remedy all the corruption in the Gilded Age he wanted to put American back on the right track.
We can see how the strategic president is ideal by comparing the presidencies of Carter and Reagan. Both of these president had no experience as a politician in Washington so great persuasion skills were needed in order for them to get legislation passed. President Jimmy Carter did not hire many experience Washington politics as his delegates which hurt his case when he was trying to pass legislation through Congress. Reagan used the strategy of a strategic competent president by hiring very qualified officials in his cabinet, this helped Reagan to get his agenda passed greatly. Here we can clearly see the right mix of minimalist and self-reliance being used in the Reagan administration.
. . is almost uniformly negative” (59). Additionally, Simonton notes that those in the oligarchy referred privately to their rule as an oligarchy; they seldom did so publicly. To me, the story of the Roman patricians granting political rights to the plebeians to maintain control fits with Simonton; however, at what point does this ‘control’ become a fiction?
The reason I mentioned that is bipartisanship means both parties have to come together but some time with parties they think bipartisan ship means one republican jumps on a mostly democrat bill or vice versa. That’s not bipartisanship at all what it is, is congressmen giving each other favors in order to pass a bill. There isn’t much give and take which means it’s not bipartisan. Also bipartisanship stops gridlock but if there are positions that one side feels that needs to be addressed it and it doesn’t then it pays off to be partisan. The reason for that is that the legislation process has some form of debate so parties make good quality bills that doesn’t grant the ills of both parties on the bill.
I do not think this system is fair, I think it contradicts the fact that as Americans we are given the freedom to vote, but it seems as though the people’s vote actually doesn’t decide much. It has been proven in 2000, when George W. Bush lost the popular vote by .51% yet still won the electoral college vote by 271 to 266, this doesn’t seem right to me at all. Part of living in the U.S. is having the opportunity to vote for the person running your country, we are always told “our vote matters” which it does in a sense, but it seems more as though we are voting for other people to vote. The Electoral College system is very unequitable in my eyes. The people chosen for our electors meet on the Monday following
The argument considering the validity of the electoral college system is home to many complicated components, therefore, creates very diverse opinions. In addition, not all voters are well educated as to how the system works as a whole nor the beginnings of the electoral college and why it was called to action. Because many people are only exposed to portions of the media, biases are easily founded. Some would argue that the electoral college helps the nation to manage large numbers of votes and essentially "round-out" a winner. When the elections are fairly slanted towards one candidate, the electoral college is helpful in fully distinguishing a winner.
(142) Theodore Roosevelt and Howard Taft 's platforms on trusts and direct democracy, judicial recall and constitution usage in courts may have contrasted, but they did share similar opinions about women 's voting rights. Roosevelt, throughout the entirety of the election made his opinion on Taft very clear. Roosevelt said "But I do not care for Taft, indeed I think less of him as time goes on, in spite of the fact that I believe he is improving his position before the people. He is a flubdub with a streak of the second-rate and the common in him, and he has not the slightest idea of what is necessary if this country is to make social and industrial progress" (72). Taft, similarly, based much of his campaign on bad mouthing Roosevelt, while simultaneously advocating strong constitutional governing of the people.
Although the popular votes do not determine the elector votes, it almost always happens where the electors vote for whom the popular votes resulted in. This is one of the many reasons why the Electoral College is unfair, past elections have shown that bigger populations have more electoral votes, concluding that smaller states’ votes become insignificant. This leaves people in question, is the Electoral College now based on where you live? Even though the purpose of the electoral college is to ultimately decide who will occupy the position of the president, there was an Electoral Commision of elite representatives, established to determine the 19th President, because of the situation the electoral college caused. The commission included five representatives from the House, another five associates from the Senate and five justices from the Supreme Court.