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.
In 1932 Hitler won 37.5 percent of the seats (230 seats) in the Reichstag making the Nazi party the largest in the Reichstag so Hitler should have been Chancellor. But it wouldn’t work like that. President Hindenburg, Franz von Papen and General von Schleicher all hated and distrusted Hitler so it was not going to be easy for Hitler to become Chancellor. Hindenburg could however see that Hitler and the Nazis could prove helpful so he appointed von Papen as Chancellor. Von Papen had no support in the Reichstag but he hoped that he could form a right-wing coalition with the Nazis and other right-wing parties.
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.
In 1876, 1888 and 2000, the candidate who won the popular vote lost the presidency because of this system. There is a winner takes all system, in all states except for Maine and Nebraska, where the candidate with the most votes in one states wins all the electoral college votes for that state. This often hugely distorts the results, for example Reagan won 50.7% of the popular vote but won 90.9% of the electoral college votes. It is also grossly unfair to third parties, Ross Perot for example won 18.9% of the popular vote but gained none of the electoral college votes. It can also be considered unfair in the way that it allows for the votes of some people to be worth more than others depending on geographical location.
To win the presidency a canidate must have 270 electoral collge votes. Basically the popular vote does not really matter. One way the winner take-all feature affects the way major party presidential canidates run their campaigns is that they target states with the most electoral college votes such as California, Texas, and Florida. Canidates also concentrate on closely divided states who are between Republican and Democratic. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.
Appointment by legislature was considered, as that was the method most states used to elect the governor; however, delegates feared it would upset the balance of the three branches of government by making the president beholden to congress (Johnson 12-13). They then considered a direct election by the people. This method was viewed as being the most democratic, but presented a myriad of problems. Most significantly, small state delegates were apprehensive to a direct vote by the people, as they worried votes in their states would be overpowered by votes in larger, more populous states (Johnson 12). With appointment by legislature considered a threat to the balance of powers, and a direct vote
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.
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%.
One main point is that without voter identification laws, such as registering in your home state, Americans will try to vote in several states in hopes of increasing their candidates chance of winning the election. This would create in unfair advantage to the candidates at the polls and would not result in an honest election. Another argument is that these laws reduce the chances of Americans voting under fake names or under deceased names. If someone is using another person’s identity or making up a name, it can only be concluded that they do not want their actual identity discovered or known for whatever reason. Not only is it dishonest but it’s also against the law to use a deceased persons information for any reason.
Walter Benn Michaels' argument makes more sense than Giroux's, because the idea of keeping diversity apart of our lives keeps America from becoming truly "united." Benn Michaels says that focusing on race as the thing keeping America seperate is entirely wrong. The main problem comes down money and class. Class differences are the sole reason why America is diverse and not united. When focusing on race and ethnicity the real problem of social class differences gets brushed under the rug.