Public participation in the presidential nomination process in the USA has only the norm since the 1970’s, after the recommendations from the commission for the Democratic Party. These led to the use of primaries in almost every state, and caucuses in a few states. There are many arguments to say that this does not advance democracy, however there are also numerous that say that public participation does in fact advance democracy. In this essay I will be assessing whether public participation hinders or advances the presidential nomination process with the most convincing argument being that public participation hinders democracy. One arguments showing that public participation advances democracy is that it allows a wider range of candidates to run for presidency that are not part of the Washington establishment.
The Tea Party of the Colonia Era and Tea Party of Today Despite having the same name “Tea Party,” this modern day movement does not share very much with the historical event in 1773. The most glaring difference between the Boston Tea Party of 1773 and the Tea Party of today remains to be the movement’s political affiliations. The majority of the Tea Party members are registered Republicans voters who support many of the party candidates, which divides the resemblance of the Boston’s Tea Party from the very beginning. The Boston Tea Party received no financial support from large companies looking to push their views on society. The today’s Tea Party receives substantial financial support from multibillion dollar company owners such as the Koch Brothers.
No One to Throw a Party for the People Those with power tend to dictate the social norms, rules and laws of society. This is the basis of many sociological studies. When sociologists speak about power it is mostly referring to politics and more so not referring to the common man or “day-laborer.” In this chapter that we read this week, “The 1890’s: Economic Depression and Political Crisis” this reoccurring motif of the man in power controlling how the common man lives is very evident. The 1890’s was a time when most people would hear about America as the land of opportunity and not think of a place with high unemployment rates and monopolists taking advantage of simple people just trying to feed their families. However, it was the
However, there are inevitably some questions arising about the electoral college and whether it still works best for the US today. Some say it should be completely scrapped, with a more democratic direct election taking it's place; others day that it can be mended by reforming it, and the final argument is to defend it, and leave it as it is. One reason to end the electoral college system is because it is not democratic enough. The winner of the nationwide vote could in fact lose the election because of the way the electoral college works. Popular vote winners have been denied the presidency in 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000.
UNLIKE presidential contests, America’s mid-term elections do not seem to inspire many people. In 2012 fully 59% of registered voters turned up at the polls for the presidential election. But two years earlier just 42% bothered to cast their votes in the 2010 mid-term elections, and this year’s turnout may be even lower. Few are as uninterested as the young. In 2010 the turnout of people aged 18 to 24 was just 21%.
In America today, most people are focusing on only the big things: “whose tax plans are better, who will lead this country in a better direction, who can turn our economy around;” all questions asked about the presidential candidates. Many people aren’t even paying attention to their own states race; I for one have no idea who is running in Missouri. In reality however the gubernatorial races (race for governor) is just as important as the presidential debates and probably more so. For instance, if Obama becomes the next president and his plan for taxing doesn’t occur, then we rely on our states taxing policy which hopefully (even though I’m a republican) is as good as or better the Obama’s. Other issues also keep our state at a high level of importance: education, transportation, healthcare, alternative energy sources, crime, gang organizations, and
I find Rush Limbaugh to be very harsh in a lot of his expressions, such as words like: “feminazis” (referring to radical feminists “to whom the most important thing in life is ensuring that as many abortions as possible occur.”) Calling President Obama “Barrack the Magic Negro” already leans towards racism. He doesn’t seem to think about what he is saying, and keeps defending his points without having any reasonable argument. To me he seems to be a person that does not want to cope with change; an “old dog you can’t teach new tricks” to. He seems to be very driven into his ways, and does not accept new beliefs and viewpoints. And, in my opinion, this is one of the reasons he keeps resulting in these aggressive “outbursts”.
Although they got more votes than any other party, only 35.2% of the population actually wanted a Labour government, yet they ended up representing 55.1% of the country in Parliament. No government in recent years has ever been elected after obtaining a majority of the votes; the closest any government has got is 40%. Therefore this shows that First Past the Post doesn’t select a government which is popular with the people as the majority of the people didn’t actually vote for the government they have ended up with. Another, more recent example of this is the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition. The Conservatives got 36.1% of the votes and the Liberal Democrats got 23%.
Another thing portrayed prejudice in the novel, is the way whites talk to blacks. "I said come here nigger, and bust up this chiffarobe for me, I gotta nickel for you”(Lee241). Referring to an African American as a "nigger" is completely disrespectful and making them seem like they are lower than the whites are, which is not the case. No person wants to be spoken to in that manner, white or black. This word is used immensely throughout the novel, especially during the trial.
William Hoppe 2/18/08 Mr. Lesure Introduction to Political Science: “American Democracy at Risk” The United States has always stood as the perfectly sculpted democratic society. However, with no regard for the country’s history, modern-America has entered a downward spiral, leaving democracy behind. Through a diminishing voting public, a media, controlled by a few conglomerates, influencing the nation, and a less-educated public, the country is heading towards an end where no future is promised. In today’s society, only half of voting-age Americans exercises their right to vote in the Presidential election. In the last forty-five years voter turnout has fallen and continues to lower.