If we look at most of our opinion when it comes to voting comes from the band wagon affect these days. Media often sways people’s perception on the candidate. I believe that voting doesn’t do us any good when it comes to electing the President of the United States of America or anyone elected to State Represenitive, Governor, or state local official. No matter who get the most popular vote or majority of the votes, the Electoral College always wins. To me this makes voting it senseless to me since the candidate that the American people have voted for will not get elected because of the Electoral College.
The Electoral College requires a presidential candidate to have trans-regional appeal. Trans-regional appeal is when a presidential candidate tries to appeal to all or more than one region. No region has enough electoral votes to elect a president. For example, “So a solid regional favorite, such as Romney was in the South, has no incentive to campaign heavily in those states, for he gains no electoral votes by increasing his popularity in states that he knows he will.” The Electoral College makes it so that presidential candidates have to campaign in more than one region to get more support. This way many states get to see the candidate and get to hear from them.
The system was an experimental product of the 1787 Constitutional Convention. The delegates to the convention, as was the rest of the world, were inexperienced with the formation of a democracy, and made their best attempt to strike a balance between a true democracy and appeasing the newly-united states. As the fragile nation quickly discovered, each of the states had its own needs, and compromise was a necessity. Supporters of the Electoral College often downplay the role that slavery played in its creation by insisting that the compromise was intended to protect the small states from the will of the large ones, but the true divisions that the Electoral College intended to patch were between the North and the South, and they involved one key issue: slavery
For instant, if I was a Republican this would be a great opportunity to lead in an election. Since most of the people voting Democrat, will possibly be turned away because they were unable to provide the required documentation by law. However, if I was Democrat, this could be considered a hindrance for my supports to vote. I really don’t see the equality of how an individual can be allowed to vote by absentee vote if they are not on active military duty. For instance, college students, who are permitted to vote absentee.
If you have lived in Texas you would have to vote for a slate of 34 Democratic electors. Anyone can be elected as the electors that are going to be voting for you. Voters can sometimes get confused about who to vote for and vote for the wrong candidate. Electoral college is unfair to voters. Because of the winner take all system candidates don 't spend time in states they don 't have a chance of winning, focusing only on the tight races in the “swing” states.
Did you know that on election day you do not vote directly for president. Many people don’t like that they don’t ultimintly decide for president. They however don’t understant that it is there for a quite a few reasons. The first is that the founding fathers created the electoral college, second that it ensures that every state gets a say in who the president is, and number three is that it makes sure that the president is chosen by a majority vote and not a popular vote. When the founding fathers built this country they made the electoral college so that the presadent could be picked by an educated population.
One of the biggest worries when people talk about compulsory voting is the fear of uneducated votes randomly swinging polls all around in no orderly fashion. Compulsory voter supporters argue that the abstention option is all that is needed to solve this problem. However, research conducted by Trevor Burrus found that between twenty-nine and thirty-six percent of previous non-voters who chose to not abstain could not tell you who they voted for upon leaving the polling place. Compulsory voting creates a stigma to make people want to cast a vote and make their vote matter if they’re going to be forced to come out anyway, this causes people to not abstain and just pick any candidate or the one they have heard their name the most. Another commonly used tactic to cleanse the polls is to put a fictitious name on the ballot to grab at least a chunk of the uneducated or random votes.
Campaign finance laws regarding federal election subsidies, money towards national convention efforts, presidential nominee subsidies, and soft money expenditures are all contributing to the failure of any third party takeoff. The FECA Act of 1974 that “provides subsidies for major party candidates for presidency” based upon the amount of money they raise indirectly impact the ability of minor parties to keep up with such long standing two party competition (Herrnson, 3). Campaign finance laws seem to have driven competition between only the two major parties in the United States as their provisions make it difficult for minor parties to receive enough funds with such a small following, even if that following has large sums of money. Both major and minor parties can qualify for government political funding through acts such as FECA; however, the major parties have great advantage of minor parties when it comes to receiving large sums of money due to their already established base. Major parties also have an advantage over third parties because they automatically receive national convention subsidies; over $13.1 million went to each major party in 2000 to help fund them (Herrnson, 4).
Citizens rights? This amendment protects citizen 's rights, by allowing them to elect their own senators as opposed to the legislature electing them. Supported After the time of the Civil War, differences about the fairness of elections of senators arose. This, combined with numerous stalemate in votes due to clashing parties, led to the amendment Didn’t support Various senators were against the election by the people, because they were afraid of the power being given to the people. Introduced and ratified?
People tend to abandon their personal ritualism - they vote despite believing the electoral system is rigged, at times having to vote for candidates they both have disdain for, having to choose the lesser evil. For example, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were the chosen candidates for the Democratic and Republican parties in the most recent presidential election. Lots of people didn’t agree with either of them and found them both insufferable but the majority of voters became complacent due to the fact that one of the two was the political party that they aligned with, or the fact that they knew that splitting the vote to cast a ballot for their actual beliefs from a minority party would be even more detrimental. We see complacency a lot, with aspiring young creatives having to replace their ambition for their goals with the action of doing the bare minimum to attain them, allowing rules to derail them from their true potential. They tend to give up their true goals for material
It also consist of the number of members it has in the Senate, which is always two regardless of the State 's population. Being that states get a select number of electoral votes, in most cases, the Electoral College fails to accurately reflect the national popular vote. Electors have the power to vote for whomever they want even though ultimately they are supposed to represent the popular vote. Another problem with the Electoral College is it gives voters no incentive to vote. Being that the Electoral College votes elects the president, it discourages voters in states to not vote in
The main criticism that “the current two-party system gives too much power to the extremists in each party” (Wheelan, 2013, para. 2). When people are chosen by the party to run, in many cases they represent the extremist views held and become the mascot for the party. The current system is skewed so moderates, the people some say are essential to politics, are not chosen because they do not represent the party strongly enough. These extremist candidates help to discourage education of the intricacies of individual issues because voters are forced into accepting how the party views the issue, due to either voting due to the candidate 's party affiliation, or being forced into choosing the extremist that comes closest to their own personal beliefs.
Clearly, from the results of the two polls, many fans would be unhappy if the Redskins’ name were to be changed. Also, if any professional sport teams were forced to change their names, it would have a huge negative impact on commercial products. Lingebach addresses in his article how “in another sign of support, the majority of Washington, DC fans would not purchase new team merchandise if the Redskins changed their name” (qtd. in Lingebach 2). If Native Americans and most of the National Football League fans infer that the name is not derogatory, the Redskins should not have to change their name.
The source of Socrates’ suspicion of democracy stems from the argument that the general public is ignorant and therefore lacks the knowledge or reason to make the best decision for government and electing officials. The foundation of democracy is based on majority rule, however because the majority is unaware of what truly is good for them, by virtue of their ignorance, the masses are not capable of electing a leaders fit to run the state or government. Socrates contends that due to the general public’s ignorance, the majority will vote in favor of what and who panders to their desires and wants rather than what is logical and better for their souls (459b). Because the general public is ignorant, those who have the knack of oratory pander to the desires of the masses and therefore the consequence of democracy is inherent corruption in the governing structure. Socrates contends that the art of