According to the statistic of We the people, “most members of Congress are elected in landslide elections, and why 98 percent of incumbents are re-elected.” (385). It is actually hard for new candidates to win and replace incumbents because of redistricting. In other words, the results are almost in the desire of legislators, so the voting of citizens looks wasting time and money and does not express their right in the election. The purpose of election to look for the winner with the highest rate of votes, but gerrymandering interrupts that purpose and drives the result into their bias parties. Therefore, the election in America does not prove that it is a democracy country as far as existing gerrymandering.
The period from 1815 to 1825 is commonly referred to as the “Era of Good Feelings”. Following the collapse of the Federalist political party the Republicans ran unopposed and attempted to reach agreements with previous Federalist dominated states granting the period this title. The Republican Party factionalized as a result of no opposition resulting in sectionalism, which led to various political and economic issues. This period being called, “The Era of Good Feelings,” is an incorrect title because of the widespread panic prevalent in the United States during this time. Document A, which is a letter from John Randolph to Congress, clearing expresses concerns about sectionalism.
As an encouragement to vote most of us have probably been told, “every vote counts” at some point in our lives. In reality, this is not true in presidential elections due to the Electoral College and what it does. The Electoral College has flaws in it that can prohibit the outcome of the election from accurately reflecting whom a majority the people of the country cast their vote for. Not only will he abolishment of the electoral college change the outcome of elections, it can change the whole campaign process and the way some people in less represented states feel about voting increasing voter turnout. Every four years in early November we have the most important election that there is in this country, the presidential election.
In recent years, “requirements for photo identification have been hotly debated” (Drew A16). There are many different views of both political parties. While mostly Democrats are opposed to these laws, the main proponents who have been promoting voter-ID requirements are Republican state lawmakers claiming that they are needed to help prevent voter fraud. “Republicans say that large jumps in the immigrant population have also prompted them to act to safeguard elections” (Lizette A1). In other words, Republicans are claiming that fraudulent voting is an issue in the electoral process and having to provide further identification such as a photo ID is a solution.
This week’s lesson gave me more clarity on the-the Electoral College. It was confusing at first to hear that the popular vote does not win an election. Bush lost the popular votes, but won the electoral vote in 2000, cleared by the Supreme Court (POLS201). I think it is better for the candidate to worry about the crucial electoral votes than the popular votes. According to POL201 lesson book, former Senator John Kerry in 2004 and Al Gore 2000 had the victories in California, but Bush won both elections.
The ability of the URR to buy up smaller lines and form a monopoly so angered voters that this bond measure enabled the SFMR to run its first service in 1912, down Geary Street and 33rd Avenue. These lines eventually became MUNI. URR became the Market Street Railway in 1921, after labor strikes. The unpopularity of the line continued, and in the seventh vote, San Franciscans voted to buy the operations of the Market Street Railway. San Francisco absorbed the company in
The democrats have stayed with this system more so than the republicans because Nixon and Reagan buried their democrat rivals in the general elections and won by landslides so, they decided that when they have a candidate that they know will not stand up well against the rival party, that they have the ability to impact who gets nominated and possibly field a more successful candidate. If I would have been asked this question prior to this election, I probably would have said “Get rid of the superdelgates,” but now I’m not 100% sure. With a candidate like Trump, you see that he has a great voter following, more than anyone thought would ever take him seriously. Imagine if the Democratic Party had a candidate like Trump (some see Bernie Sanders as a “grassroots activist” in the Democratic Party although Bernie is not emotionally and negatively divisive). Trump may take the popular vote but, he may not get the “unpledged" delegates (Republican Party) or enough total delegates to get the nomination and for me, that would be a “pro” for the “super or “unpledged” delegate
Although the end of World War I did not resolve any of the conflicts that prompted the war, it had multiple effects on the world in a variety of different ways. It helped the United States to make policies that would help, and also hurt the economy. Fears created from the war brought political changes, and with all the political and economic changes, there was a large magnitude of cultural differences as well. All of these changes brought the U.S. closer to where it is today. There were many presidents that took office from the start of the war to the end, President Theodore Roosevelt was the president in office when the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or the FBI, was created.
Political parties hold far too much power in today’s election process and need to be abolished. Parties were originally only intended to serve as temporary coalitions for specifically controversial elections, and yet every election since the late 1700’s has been won by a specific party. The existence of political parties has had quite a few negative effects on America including the division of people, a lack of communication, and violence between opposing sides (U.S. History.org). The idea that political parties are dangerous is not a new concept. George Washington discussed his view on the issue in his farewell address in 1796.
California govener, Jerry Brown, recently signed the ABX2-- the "End of Life Option Act"--making it a statewide law. According to Brown, he signed the bill based on his own feelings and is getting critized for doing so. He claims he "wouldn 't deny that right to others" but is getting pushed from the Californians Aganist Assisted Suicide which is claming that Brown since Brown came from a more wealthier background unlike the million others of Californians – he is not looking out for the disadvantaged who dont have access to better doctors and medicine. Though some on in head with Brown, claiming that they dont have to go through any more pain—both physical and emotional-- , many organizations oppose it saying it will encourgae