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.
This is wrong; states usually have a preference to a certain party and your vote could sway that preference and alter the distribution of states to candidates (State Political). As American Citizens we have to remember that voting is the only say that we have in government. We can influence the way tax money is spent to the healthcare that we receive. By not voting, each citizen is stating that they do not wish to influence what happens around them and to let things carry out “naturally”. Another issue is the age group of voters.
In addition, the news media focuses on formats that are designed to produce news that sells. The constant points on drama, eye catching headlines, and strategic games of power fail to provide substantial information about government accountability. What does a politician’s number of marriages have to do how they are performing in office? The media looses site of real issues for example unemployment rates, poverty, health issues, balancing the budget, the list goes on. In my opinion, people in general do not like conflict.
Congress would start making laws that makes it more powerful, the President would use his power on the armed forces to gain influence and the supreme court would cut deals with congress by using its power to judge court cases (CEE, 2011) You might argue that no respectable politician would try unjustly gain more power, but this is not true; the politicians would easily justify this and since there would be no system in place to stop them they wouldn't be accountable. Even if only one part of government tried to give themselves more power there would be chaos. The other parts of government would be constantly in struggle to prevent the rightful powers from being infringed upon. This struggle would prevent the government from functioning properly. One law in the system of checks and balances is the law that allows citizens to challenge any law that they feel is unjust.
In some cases, the pressure groups even undermine their internal democracy as the minority (the leaders) voices are heard rather than the majority (the members). Pressure groups could be said to promote democracy by educating the electorate. They do this by making them more educated and more informed through political discussions and debates. Pressure groups widen the information available to the public. Without the media and pressure groups, the public would have to rely on information given from a narrow range of sources with limited viewpoints; mostly from the major political parties e.g.
This affects how each party chooses to inform the public, wanting people to agree with their point of view instead of the opposing party. This causes many political ads to be greatly biased, resulting in hesitation from the public to immediately take action. Political parties are careful not to offend any of the general public, in order to bring in as many voters as possible. Speeches, Rallies, and conventions (developed by parties and led by the candidate of the election) are carefully conducted to leave a certain impression (influence) on the audience. This also happens through the media ( news, internet, magazines).
A majority of this nation does not support mandatory voting in this country. Congress should not pass this bill because America simply does not want to be forced to vote. Mandatory voting will cause ignorant voting. The government is silly to think that mandatory voting will cause the people to increase their attention to politics. Not every citizen will have a political interest for each election or knowledge of the ongoing election.
The ambiguous concept of civil engagement can be referred to attitudinal or behavioural orientations to politics. These are important in understanding the likely prospects of political participation as the relationship between the individual and their power of influence is vital in this case. In addition, some people wont be well educated so there vote would be a frivolous decision therefore as a result they feel that there is no point in turning up. Furthermore, when an election will not affect the society such as an election
Firstly, consulting the electorate on specific policy matters relies on people making well-informed decisions about complex and often specialist matters. One could argue that the general public simply do not understand the intricacies of politics and government enough to make the right choices about running the nation – and therefore that the experts who we elect and rely on as part of our current democracy should continue to represent the electorate in making these decisions. The 2011 referendum on AV was widely criticized for the lack of information available to and certainly used by voters, and many argue that had people better understood the issue, they would have voted differently. Another argument about the unreliability of referendums concerns campaigning. As seen with AV in 2011, the ‘No’ campaign was better funded and better supported which majorly affected the referendum’s outcome – one can argue that wider use of referendums will put even more political decisions in the hands of the rich and influential, detracting from democracy.
The government should not be setting interest rates because they are too biased. The politicians are too focused on gaining votes in the public elections and therefore would only say what the people want and will win them votes rather than the actual policy which the Country needs. The Bank of England are a skilled workforce who can be trusted in this area because they understand how the Countries economic growth is moving, and although the government may understand the Countries economic growth they may take other things into account such as foreign influences or have unbalanced views due to the voting of the general elections. At the end of the day the Bank of England do not have to win any votes and are therefore much more impartial and will not be swayed to what the public want. However, it can be argued that the government would do the best for the Country whether they wanted to win votes or not because they do not want to undergo the threat of putting the Country in a downwards spiral.