Baron Montesquieu was the genius behind this principle and it was a contribution between Locke and himself. It was separately but the power of the people help it to grow. The checks and balances is a system that allows each branch of government to limit the powers of the other branches in order to prevent abuse of power and it can be found in the Articles one, two, and three. The purpose of this principle was to make sure each branch worked fairly and together. Limited government, groups or individuals which cannot bypass the law to serve their own interests.
One way the Constitution prevented tyranny is by supporting Federalism. A federalist government is one with a Central government and many smaller state governments. This was an effective way to prevent tyranny because Central government still had power, but the States still could control their respective state. There is venn diagram in
This system allows all three branches of government to try to improve or just outright veto the actions of another branch, keeping the other branches from being too powerful. One example is that then president, who is in charge of the Executive branch, can veto laws passed by Congress. Another example would be that Congress can remove the president from office in certain circumstances. The French philosopher Montesquieu originally thought of these ideas of separation of powers and the system of checks and balances. The way he saw it, is that these systems were the best way of keeping government from becoming corrupt.
Much effort has been put into analyzing voting behavior and patters in previous elections in an effort to predict their own voter base and those social groups they could concentrate their efforts on and those groups that would appear to be a lost cause and therefore a waste of time in terms of money spent and time invested in targeting as potential voters. The use of emotional appeals in political campaigns to increase support for a candidate or decrease support for a challenger is a widely recognized practice and a common element of any campaign strategy. Campaigns often seek to instill positive emotions such as enthusiasm and hopefulness about their candidate among party bases to improve turnout and political activism while seeking to raise fear and anxiety about the
Gerrymandering is a strategic way of making sure party members get what they want when it comes to voting. As citizens, the only thing that we can do to help fight against gerrymandering would be to use our legislative powers and fight for more transparent and public system within their states to hold elected officials accountable. Even if we were able to fix gerrymandering, it still would not be enough to fix gridlock. If we were able to fix gridlock, it still would not solve close to any of the problems rooted in Washington. It seems as though we are waiting for the problems to fix themselves, but we need to realize it isn't a problem that can fix itself.
Consent is not always risen from a direct act, it could be indirect and many philosophers have tried to get around this whole concept of indirect consent. A classic example of indirect consent, could be nationwide elections. By taking part in the elections, you are indirectly consenting to the authority of the state, because if you intend to become obligated by voting then you are allowing the state to enforce laws that should be obeyed, even though you may not always agree with them. If we do not like the laws implemented upon us, we can protest them, but this disqualifies the whole concept of a democratic state, because a state that is democratic would administer certain laws and its citizens would be obligated to obey them. What about a
According to Opensecrets, super pacs are independent expenditure-only committees that raise money from donors outside of a campaign in order to advocate for or against any specific political candidate. Since super pacs are organized and run by millionaires and billionaires, they raise very large amounts of money that can be used to drastically attack or help candidates. If the government continues to place no restrictions on campaign spending amounts then the rise of super pacs may be avoided and there will be more transparency in a candidate’s campaign than without. If money didn’t have an influence on politics then the government would be less influenced by millionaires and wealthy corporations, therefore citizens of lower classes would have more say in the government. Although, restrictions on spending money could lead to secret transactions with foreign countries.
“An important part of political polarization is just in your head” explains how people’s opinions play a key role in political polarization (Gelman 2016, 1). People may have misconceptions about who is voting Democrat or Republican, leading them to believe that ideologies vary. Biases and prejudices tend to shape the people’s view of political polarization. According to Douglas Ahler and Gaurav Sood, “people think that 32% of Democratic Supporters are LGBT (6% in reality) and 38% of Republican supporters earn over $250,000 per year (2%)… These misperceptions are relatively universal across partisan groups and positively associated with political interest.” Therefore, misperceptions tend to influence their view point on opposing political parties and their ideologies, but the causes may also stem from other influential sources (Gelman, 2016
A representative democracy is the best way to keep society out of the state of nature, and still preserve individuals’ rights. The flaws that exist in the argument presented in Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes stem from the fact that a singular leader cannot be trusted to create just covenants. While that one individual can remove society from the state of nature, their own human nature will trigger members of society to invoke their right of nature. Thus taking society back into the undesired state of nature. The best way to prevent this cycle is creating a representative democracy where a multitude of people have power, making it more likely for the laws covenants that are created to be just for all of
If the ban was implemented properly or not is an important question. As a government working for its citizens, they are obligated to ban tobacco advertising. If the government doesn’t take the action, then nobody else is going to make a ban. Some people that oppose the ban may say the government’s decision is powerless. However, these that oppose the decision need to recognize that supporting the ban is the ethical decision.
Super Pacs are legal because it would be a violation of the first amendment. “Super Pacs says “that corporations are the same as people” and that it would be a violation of free speech if a restriction of donating was placed on them for participating in politics (Cost of Campaigning). 501c4s are considered legal, because their primary purpose is to promote social welfare. They must promote the common good and welfare of the community (Outside Spending). It just so happens that the group can also participate in politics as
It would be extremely difficult to add a constitutional amendment and remove the electoral college, and the current electoral college disproportionately represents some, thus some sort of reform is necessary to maintain the peace. According to the USA Today’s editorial board, “one idea worth considering is to shift away from winner-take-all in each state to a proportional allocation of electors based on statewide vote totals.” This election method would make all states like Nebraska and Maine, where electoral votes may be divided amongst parties. In using this system, the popular vote would be more important, but would not be the ultimate deciding factor of the election, essentially combining the arguments for the two opposing sides. The number of electoral votes for each state should not change, as that would mean the population of congress would have to change. Since a state’s number of electoral votes is representative of its house members and senate members, the way electoral votes are awarded should be changed.
The Federalist system of our government requires there be a sharing of power between branches, which is very much enforced with the Electoral College. There are speculations that with the abolishment of the Electoral College, the Federalist system would be lost with it. The Electoral college also helps to promote the two party system, and while some people may take issue with this, it is a way of creating stability in our government. With the distribution of power the Electoral College promotes, this allows the minority to be represented. However, there is a big issue in that the majority vote is not properly reflected by the Electoral College.
The Electoral College is a crucial component of how the President of The United States is elected. The votes cast by the Electoral College can outweigh the popular vote of the American public, so it would be consequential for the American public to be aware of the Electoral College and have at least a basic understanding of how it works. This, however, is sadly not the case. Even some of today’s elected officials are not up to date on how the government works. The Intercollegiate Studies Institute ran a poll of twenty-five hundred randomly selected Americans, out of the members of that poll that were elected officials only fifty-three percent of them answered correctly when asked if they knew what the Electoral College’s function was.
Yet, at the same time the success of the advocates who fought to make the move successful should encourage advocates that there is hope. Obtaining funding, especially with state funds being diverted from programs such as these, is a huge hurtle that could discourage advocates and SPMI individuals from even exploring the possibility of developing a drop-in center.