Many people believe that the Electoral College is outdated and we should not use it anymore. One will argument that the Electoral College can make sure people are making the right choice in choosing our president. Another reason why we are still using this voting system is because in order to get rid of it, it would require a constitutional amendment, which is extremely hard to pass. In order to pass/ratify an amendment, three fourths of the states have to agree upon changing the Constitution. This is very unlikely to happen because the Electoral College benefits the smaller states.
He therefore ought not disobey the State. He furthers his argument by saying that disobeying the State and escaping would be committing a wrong act, and would be an injustice against the people of Athens. He says that if he escaped, he would not be able to live life the same way he was used to living. Also his sons would not be able to grow in Athens and would then be raised by strangers rather than by the State that raised him and has been loyal to him. He emphasizes that although one should not disobey the State, one can always try to persuade the State to improve is as a whole in truth and
It is often argued that Socrates believed "ideals belong in a world only the wise man can understand” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates#Politics) making the philosopher the only type of person suitable to govern others. This is completely absurd because all he is trying to do here is get him in power. What a bold statement to say that only philosophers were the only people suitable to govern people. Socrates was in no way subtle about his particular beliefs on government. He openly objected to the democracy that ran Athens during his adult life.
The teacher perceives that although the philosopher king would be the finest choice for a ruler, it was much more likely that for a despot to hold the position of power. The Socrates makes is that a philosopher would make the best king. If a man could possess both philosophic thinking, and the proper skills necessary for ruling an assembly of people, said the teacher, then he would be the perfect king. I partially understand; however, I’m not aware of what qualities a philosopher has that make him so perfect. Allow me to explain.
If the Supreme Court judges were to be elected and corrupted by the public then nothing about them would be “supreme”. These elite people are where they are because of their morals and value. The precise reason as to why they have been appointed rather than made run an election. The Supreme Court Justices are not chosen by the people of America but by the President of the United States. Our founding fathers knew what kind of world this world was going to become and therefore made this decision to protect the well being of our
The system arose gradually as states began to feel that the previous method of allowing party officials to decide was undemocratic in a modern society. That the current system is democratic and encourages public participation in politics is a particular strength of primaries. Adjoined to this is that it places no restrictions on who can stand, however, despite its benefits many people have criticised the system and are pressing for its reform. Emphasising the huge costs, frontloading and regionalisation of primaries, critics state that for all its claims to be democratic it prohibits the candidates from competing on an equal level. Equally the low levels of turnout in primaries suggest that many people are not interested in the primaries and raises questions over the legitimacy of any winner.
Therefore, he would likely think that Plato’s ideology is too optimistic, if not ignorant, and that one must have a realist viewpoint to survive this world. Machiavelli’s “The Prince” directs rulers to be practical and do basically anything to stay in power, even if it requires being evil. He would reject Plato’s opinions regarding rulers, since Plato believed that rulers must “ascend until they arrive at the good” (55) and “the State in which the rulers are most reluctant to govern is always the best and most quietly governed, and in the State in which they are most eager, the worst” (61). Plato's views directly contrast to Machiavelli’s views on the ruler, which is that the best and most effective ruler is one that does everything possible to maintain the power in which he holds. He is only worried about the attainable future and ideals, while Plato is more focused about the enlightenment of man, and the understanding of knowledge.
Contentment should be out of fullness and not laziness. Even though philosophers like Plato disagree with this statement (especially in Republic VII), other people may disagree which means that there really is no true answer. The people that agree with this statement however, would have not encountered enlightenment and are therefore less important that philosophers that have which makes this statement completely false in one’s
While Carr’s arguments lead to the viable point that technology is now so deeply riveted into the fabric of our lives that we have lost control over its influence on us, he is not the first to be concerned. According to Carr, Socrates thought very little of the advancement of writing due to the fact that it would force society to forfeit the use of their memory because of the abundance of written material that would then be available. He also believed that people would, without receiving knowledge from credible sources, rely alone on their own interpretation of information and in turn become ignorant. Carr sees Socrates’ way of thinking as “short-sighted,” even though his argument in relationship to the internet mirrors that of Socrates’. Google has “[served] to spread information, spur fresh ideas, and expand human knowledge” today in the same way that the development of writing expanded the mind of an individual in the first century (Carr 8).
People would not get to have a say in anything, and would be frustrated on how things are going in the government. During the 1880’s the U.S did achieve its ideals of democracy, and in the late 1920’s America did not achieve its ideals of democracy. It is important to analyze how undemocratic the US has been because people may not know much about the US and may think that it is better but it may be not, because we have some times in history where things have not been democratic. We should analyze the history of the US so that we can see how the US have become better, or worse during the past years. My knowledge of US history can help me become a better leader because I already know the mistakes America did already, so I wouldn’t make them again, instead I would be even