James Yezek PD. 6 Electoral college-Winner-takes all system In U.S. presidential elections, the Electoral College is the group of electors who actually cast ballots for the President. When a voter casts a ballot for a presidential candidate, he or she is actually voting for a slate of electors from their state who will cast their ballots for their candidate. The electoral college ultimately holds the fate of choosing the president of the United States. Most states use the winner-take all system which is a system in which a candidate receiving a majority of popular vote in a state receives all of its electoral votes.
Jacksonian democrats were only guardians of political democracy, individual liberty and equality of economic opportunity, and the United States Constitution when it benefitted them. They were inconsistent in their handlings of these political notions. Voting in the elections during the 1820s to 1840 was more popular than ever. After the financial panic of 1819 white males without land demanded that they have suffrage and the ability to hold office; they were granted in the era of the Jacksonian Democracy (PK). White men now had universal manhood suffrage.
Each state selects “well-known individuals with sound judgment,” to vote for the president; the state has the same number of electors as they do member of its congressional delegations in both the House and the Senate, (By the People, 59). This means that population matters for each state. Furthermore, the electors usually follow whichever candidate who won for their state, but only twenty-six require them to do so. The electoral college is significant because it is one of the basic functions of American government, president like George W. Bush, and Donald Trump won because of the electoral
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.
However, there is also reason to suggest that this is not the case, and that pluralism determined the outcome of the 2008 election. A significant percentage of America’s population voted in the 2004 election, with even more predicted to vote in the 2008 election which was the case. People were and still are politically aware and therefore made up their own mind. This may have been due to e.g. voting for change and rationally by voting Democratic instead of Republican, or because they believed in Obama.
According to the Missouri Election Board in Jackson County, “..We end up with two large, pragmatic political parties which tend to the center of public opinion rather than dozens of smaller political parties catering to divergent and sometimes extremist views.” In the direct popular vote, many presidents representing minor, regional parties will run, causing problems such as the disruption from an electoral majority. They will represent regional, localized ideas and have small, decentralized platforms. Under the direct popular vote, it allows presidential candidates with localized ideas take office and neglect the need for national appeal. Anybody with a large base of support would be able to win. The overwhelming majority could be from the presidential
The Founders set up a system of government in which even the "little" people, the "losers" of society, get to have a voice in what laws are passed and what wars are launched. Such "power to the people" is the very definition of liberalism--it was unthinkable everywhere else in the world at the time. The Latin root of the word "liberal" just means freedom and liberty. The Founding Fathers wanted maximum freedom and liberty for Americans (except for African-Americans and Native Americans). All the jobs created by General George Washington and President George Washington, and President Jefferson, and the other Founders were government jobs such as the ones listed in the Question.
The election of the leader is very important part of political parties as people now vote more for a prime minster than governing party, for example conservative’s won over Labour because David Cameron was seen as more enthusiastic and inspirational then Gordon brown, where he was seen as dull and boring. This means individual members in Labour have a significant role and power in the party. However in the conservative the individual members don’t have as much power as the Labour members. The election of the party leader is different to the Labour party, the MP's select the two final candidates for leader through numerous votes, and the members only get to vote at the end of the process for party leader. This means that individual members don’t have the same amount of power than the MP's.
For example, we elect politicians at the local, county, state, and federal levels. We elect mayors, council members, congressmen, senators, and a president to represent us.A democratic republic is not the same as a direct democracy. In a direct democracy, all citizens, not just elected representatives, create and vote directly on each law. The Founding Fathers of the United States did not want, or trust, direct democracy. Click for Republic or Democracy?
Explanatory Synthesis As the United States was formed and its government set in place, a compromise had to be reached in the method of electing a president. The Electoral College was the child born of this concession. As with most compromises, debate has always surrounded the Electoral College and its role in electing the president. The voice opposing the Electoral College is heard from Carolyn Jefferson-Jenkins, president of the League of Women Voters of the United States. Her essay titled “Who Should Elect the President” focuses on the importance of one person, one vote.