I personally say that strength is not given but earned by what you do to get others to approve your intensions. In other words, strengths and weakness depends on a personal capacity to influence the conduct of those in government. Power seems to be based on how influential or persuasive one can be. However, I also think that no matter how much the President tries to get what he wants during his term, the President will never be the most powerful man in the country. He is always sharing his power due to the checks and balances system.
The important things today are which party has at the moment the right promises for the single voter and which party is better in delivering policy goals. To conclude I would say that neither Partisan Alignment nor party allegiance related to class is what convinces the electorate of the presence. For sure both of these factors are still there in the voting behavior of the United Kingdom but very rare. The modern, educated and open-minded voters do not want to be related to a party because of their social class, they want to decide completely uninfluenced by social factors which party they vote
“Too many voters had to wait on long lines to cast their ballots” and all Obama has to say on this regard is “By the way we have to fix that”, but indeed as said by Jeffrey Toobin of the New Yorker Magazine: “no fix is in the works and there probably never will”. As a demonstration to all those Democrat supporters out there and the rest of the Americans who allowed this president to be re-elected, he won’t even try and fix something as simple as voting, you think he’ll be able to fix problems of national proportion? No, of course not, he’ll only try and probably manage to fix the problems in a semi-conservative way, we on the other hand will
Brutus says in his essay that this power given to the federal government will take away all of the state government’s power to collect taxes and that the constitutions and treaties of the states will become null. Hamilton denies this by explaining that the structure of the proposed federal government will preserve the state constitutions. What Hamilton says about this seems to go against Article 6 of the Constitution, which says that the law of the Constitution will be supreme over the states. Brutus’ Essay V seems to say the same thing over and over again. Many of the things that he lists as problems to the nation are things that we love about our government today.
But what is this feeling that marginalizes Americans? How can Americans discern this feeling from any other if their entire lives all they have known is a two party system? Arguments from supporters of any emerging third party are only speculations of a better system, in reality there is no concrete proof that in America a multi-party system would work. Americans know this and whatever the desire for change is the current system provides democracy that has been seen, felt, and lived. The two-party system is so resilient because it has become a part of politics that no amount of speculations will
The interoperability was never put into place for reasons that can only be speculated on. There are assumptions that Grant Holcomb the architect of the proposed system had a conflict of interest that may have profited him. There are also allegations that Greg Meffert, Nagin's chief technology officer, stated that the technology wouldn't work. Many controversial issues of being unethical by several parties involved in this system caused a delay that unfortunately wasn’t in play for Katrina. Interoperability is dangerous to the concept of Federalism because although New Orleans was granted money to fund the system by the national government, at the state level, it was never implemented.
Gridlock occurs when the branches of government scrutinise each other’s action to such a point where neither can pass any form of legislation, and the government therefore becomes less able to perform its duties, therefore leading to a less effective government. For example during Obamas presidency he had struggled with the majority of republican opposition in congress, and therefore had trouble to pass any major legislation such as immigration reform, jobs bill, gun control initiatives and etc. On the other hand, others may argue that the government is not ineffective because of the constitution as the checks and balances system do in fact work, as a way to prevent an overly centralised and powerful form of government, which may not stay accountable to the people as much as it does to large corporations who fund them for re-elections and etc.
Because of the lack of passion, the middle or center most position will never garner the enthusiasm that fuels the fiery rhetoric and mass protests that the more polar positions wield. But I believe that by far, the most productive and sustainable legislation and business practices always come from the center. Therefore it is my recommendation that the public at large look at the lessons of the past and see that neither a pro-business nor a pro-regulatory climate is the most beneficial one. I believe that the best answer, the best solution, the most sustainable outcome will be the one closest to the center. Bibliography Alan Nevins, study in power: John D Rockefeller (New York: Scribner, 1953) p. 443 Business government and society a managerial perspective 13th edition, Steiner
Still the Electoral College and its difficulties remain. In his book Securing Democracy: Why We Have an Electoral College, Gary Gregg explains the origins of the Electoral College and options for reform: “The Electoral College does not work as it was intended to work by the framers of our constitution.” This is a problem that has been explored very thoroughly and there is as of yet no satisfactory solution. Despite the vital importance of our nation’s voting process, this issue remains unresolved—an obstacle in our nation’s dedication to representation of the people. In any discussion of the Electoral College it is vital to keep in mind the origin of the voting system. The Electoral College was not a spur of the moment thing and
Scholars have also shown that political polarization has implications for mediating institutions, namely the media, elections and political parties. As Mann and Ornstein argue, political polarization and the proliferation of media sources have “reinforce[d] tribal divisions, while enhancing a climate where facts are no longer driving the debate and deliberation, nor are they shared by the larger public.”[4] As other scholars have argued, the media often support and provoke the obstruction strategies used to disrupt the regular order of policy procedures. [4][65] Some scholars assert that the media are not disconnected from general public opinion and that media outlets work to remain unpolarized and nonideological in order to appeal to a larger