How can those running against the already elected officials win against them? One of the first things that can be done to lower incumbency rates is to better inform the voter population about the congressmen running. Many do not know the people who are running or the values they stand for. So by being not being informed, people just end up voting for
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.
Introduction In today’s political world, there is a large part of the population who votes in elections marred with electoral fraud and malpractice. These people suffer the consequences of having non-representative governments where the government does not reflect the votes and will of the people. One would think a country devoid of fraud during the electoral process would remove previously cheating and poorly performing incumbents, resulting in better functioning governments, which is untrue. Removing electoral fraud from an election does not guarantee that the previously fraudulent or poor performing incumbents will be removed from office. Why do Fair Elections NOT Result in Better Representatives?
Apart from this uneven distribution the system of “winner takes all” also discourages people from going out to vote. For example, some Republican lives in a Democratic state that always goes Democratic when it comes to elections, they tend to not go out and vote because they know their vote won’t make a difference because of this “winner takes all” system. In the past 4 elections there has been an average voter outcome which is all around the same, but there is still a chunk of people who don’t go out and vote. Another reason people may not go out to vote is the unfairness of elections. For example, in this past election the two candidates were Donald Trump (Republican) and Hillary
I believe that we should not have an electoral college and depend on them. There are numerous reasons why I think this. It does not allow us to have a fair way to vote and it doesnt let everyone be heard. First, voters do not vote for the president they vote for a state of electors. If you have lived in Texas you would have to vote for a slate of 34 Democratic electors.
Congressional elections revolve around the ideas and opinions of who can run for office,for how long and when they are able to.Although the congressional election process seems very complex,the elections are not very competitive because of three main reasons.These reasons include incumbent protection,gerrymandering and redistricting. An incumbent is someone who is currently holding office.Incumbents use tactics like safe seats in attempt to ensure their position in office.Therefore an incumbent is less likely to lose his or her place in office,because they have many protections.Another reason that congressional elections are not very competitive is gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is the product of district lines being drawn in such a way that
Third party candidates lack political influence in the U.S. due to the overwhelming two major party success rates. Their success can be largely attributed to the many electoral institutional rules that contribute to limiting the rise of third parties, their competition. This historically proven major party dominance is due to many factors including institutional arrangements, election laws, electoral college rules, and campaign finance laws that have shaped the course of American elections; however, there are instances in which third parties can overcome electoral institutional challenges and make noticeable progress. The institutional arrangements in the United States have made major two-party success almost inevitable; however, there is
The difference lies in the fact that the average non-political voter will typically vote for a candidate based on appearance and relatively scanty information as opposed to a knowledgeable assembly of politicians who would otherwise have a more thorough association and this can be viewed as a disadvantage. Authors Sean Gailmard and Jeffrey A. Jenkins in their article titled, “Agency Problems, the 17th Amendment, and Representation in the Senate”, found in the EBSCO database clarify this when stating, “While the 17th Amendment did create a direct agency relationship, it also eliminated both the informed selection and monitoring of U.S. Senators by relative political experts, state legislators. Therefore, U.S. Senators may have been held to a better post-amendment standard in democratic terms, but not as tightly as they were held to their pre-amendment
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.
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.
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.
Substantially fewer voters are mentioning the personal characteristics of the candidates when asked what they like and dislike about them. Furthermore, rather than being an independent assessment of a candidate’s character, in the current age of polarized politics, these evaluations are more tied to partisan views than ever before, and hence less consequential.”(Wattenberg, March 2016) I think it 's important to make voters on both sides know that most people voted on issues, and
One reason that the framers of the constitution included the Electoral College is because they believed people will only vote for people in their own states and basically play favorites. However, in modern democracy it is evident that this system no longer benefits entirely the people of the states’. It must be modified because the restrictions that vary state to state through each election is now unnecessary in today’s society. In a presidential election an electoral vote should count the same as a popular vote no matter the circumstances. The states that remain mutual in a presidential candidacy election, where the populations are evenly divided causes an issue of winning the state