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.
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
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
This was established to ensure that our representatives could be renewed as often as needed to reflect the public’s beliefs. Proponents for term limitations feel that officials can become corrupt and abusive of their position. These groups wish to limit the overall time that an official can hold office to ensure that new blood will be able to inject new ideas and beliefs. The opposite to this thought is that by injecting new blood we will lose the experienced politicians that know how to get things done in the complex world of politics. There is a sharp learning curve that comes with holding
Because some populations are so high in certain areas, a large amount of the representatives elected to the House, anti-federalists feared, would be only the prominent and wealthy men of the area. This meant that even more power would be given to the government with the titles the men already had before being elected. Not only did the power of the government make the anti-federalists nervous, the lack of a bill of rights kept them agreeing with the constitution. They wanted a set rights guaranteed so that the central government didn’t have all the power that the anti-federalists were afraid of. The anti-federalist’s opposition to the constitution was
Due to the Electoral College today, it is hard to say for some whether or not the process of voting is fair and actually matters, or if your vote as a citizen of the United States does not count and is simply a waste of time. Today I am going to share my opinion on this controversial topic. The Election Process 3 Is The Election Process Fair? According to UEN.org, an election is the process by which citizens select thousands of men and women they want to run their government- at all levels. Some people believe that the current election process we use in the United States of America is not a fair one.
Objections to Populistic Democracy The technical objections to Populistic Democracy are the social choice theory and Arrow’s theorem which states that when voters have 3 or more distinct alternatives, no rank order voting system can convert the rank preferences of individuals into a community wide ranking while meeting certain criteria The ethical objections to Populistic Democracy are why are political equality and popular sovereignties ends, should we go beyond the goals of political equality and popular sovereignty, or are they the absolute pinnacle of Populistic Democracy. Also at what point do we decide that political equality is not worth it. What I mean by that is that should we take things earned by the haves so to speak and give them to the have-nots. The empirical objection to Populistic Democracy is that it fails to take into account time periods. It doesn’t account for changing times, and changes in the behavior and the thinking of the majority and the minority over time.
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.
A current example would be the tea party, which has arisen from the Republican Party, due to the GOP’s supposed neglecting of concern for federal spending, and deficit and tax decreases. Through the formation of the tea party, the Republican Party is being told that it needs to be more conservative in there fiscal spending plans to get those votes that are going to the tea party. If the Republican Party does not move to accommodate these voters, the tea party will only continue to grow, until the Republican Party will be forced to change its position to maintain its voters. Therefore, the tea party will push the Republican Party towards a more conservative view. This is the main purpose of third parties; to show the major parties what they need to do to keep their voters.
Explain why Hindenburg appointed Hitler as chancellor in January 1933: Hitler became chancellor on the 30th of January 1933, when Hindenburg, the president of Germany appoints him. But a common question is why he was appointed in the first place? Well firstly because of the political schemes that occurred in 1929 till 1932 (which meant that it was the end of parliamentary democracy) Hitler at first wasn't very popular with his ideas of how Germany should be ran, however he was determined to strengthen his power. He targeted a variation of people such as the "Mittlesland" or the middle-class promising them protection from Communism which a lot of people were scared of because of the revolution that occurred in Russia 1917 (this was when autocracy had banished in the empire and Russia became a communist country)- many feared that it would spread in Germany, and restoration of law and order; the upper class were promised Reprisal for the Treaty of Versailles, and the creation of a strong government; important business people that he would suspend trade unions from protesting for more demands; the working class were promised jobs and protection from their work, ordinary civilians who lived in the countryside were promised an increase in the price of agricultural products and finally, most importantly women, who were promised equality and proper family morals which most women of the 1930's thought were important. Hindenburg couldn't oppose against the public's choice otherwise he would be going against the democratic ‘Weimar republic’ regulation of including the people’s views.