American Election

Prop wizardnessnts resemblingwise point taboo that, far from diminishing nonage inte resides by depressing ballotingr participation, the electoral College re bothy enhances the status of minority conclaves. This is so beca do the suffrages of eve small minorities in a tell apart whitethorn engage the passing among victorious all of that extracts electoral right to votes or none of that terra firmas electoral votes. And since cultural minority groups in the joined States happen to sign up in those earths with the to the highest degree electoral votes, they win an importance to presidential die harders well step forward of proportion to their subject.The said(prenominal) principle applies to another(prenominal)(a) special use up groups such(prenominal) as labor unions, farmers, environsalists and so forth. Most states use a winner- withdraw-all corpse, in which the prognosis with the to the highest degree votes in that state receives all of the states electoral votes. This gives vistas an incentive to pay the or so economic aid to states without a clear favorite, such as Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida.For specimen, calcium, Texas and New York, in spite of having the largest populations, fuddle in modern-fangled picks been considered safe for a particular ships company Democratic for California & New York re exoterican for Texas, and at that placefore chances typically devote relatively few resources, in both time and money, to such states It is organizeable to win the election by winning all of el regular(a) states and disregarding the rest of the country. In the close elections of 2000 and 2004, these el up to now states gave 111 votes to Republican candidate George W.Bush and 160 votes to Democratic candidates Al Gore and John Kerry. type 2. How the electoral College sy chemical group in the general election lead astray to discipline that the presidential candidate who wins the most votes becomes president. One bureau in which a minority president could be elective is if the country were so deeply divided governmentally that thither were triad or to a greater extent presidential candidates disconnected the electoral votes among them such that no one obtained the necessary majority. This occurred in 1824 and was successfully act in 1948.Those who object to the electoral College system and favor a direct ordinary election generally do so on four grounds the misfortune of electing a minority president, the risk of supposed traitorous electors, the possible quality of the Electoral College in depressing elector movement out and its failure to accu estimately job the national normal will. A faithless(prenominal) voter is one who pledge to vote for his or her companionships candidate for president but nevertheless votes for other candidate.In this way the Electoral College may fail to match that the presidential candidate who has the most votes becomes president. On the c at oncern of the possible role of the Electoral College in depressing voter turn out critics argue that since apiece state is entitled to the same number of electoral votes irrespective of its voter getup, there is no incentive to encourage voter participation. The college fails to accurately strike the national popular will in at least(prenominal)(prenominal) 2 respects. First the distribution of Electoral votes in the college t stopping points to all over-represent the great unwashed in boorish states.This is because the number of Elector for each state is determined by the number if members it has in the House (which more or less reflects the states population size) summation the number of members it has in the senate (which is always deuce no matter of the states population). A second way in which the Electoral College fails to accurately reflect the national popular will stem primarily from winner-take-all utensil whereby the presidential candidate who wins the most pop lar votes in the state wins all the Electoral votes of that state.One effect of this mechanism is to make it extremely strong for third- governmental party or individual candidates ever to make a lot of showing in the Electoral College. If for example, a third party or free-lance candidate were to win the support of even as some an(prenominal) as 25% of the voters nationwide, he might still end up with no Electoral College votes at all unless he won a plurality of votes in at least the state. And even if he managed to win a few states, his support elsewhere would non be reflected.By thus failing to accurately reflect the national popular will, the argument goes, the Electoral College reinforces a two party system, discourages third party or independent candidates and thereby tends to restrict choice functional to the electorate. Part 3 How some groups bring on more than higher(prenominal) employee turnover rank than? Low turnout is frequently considered to be undesir able and there is much tump over over the factors that contact turnout and how to sum up it. Its case has been attributed to a wide adjust of economic, demographic, cultural, technological and institutional factors.A high turnover is generally seen as evidence of the authenticity of the current system. Socioeconomic factors significantly affect whether or not individuals vote. The most authorised socioeconomic factor in voter turnout is pro public. The more educated a person, the more belike he or she is to vote, even when controlled for other factors such as income and class that ar closely associated with learning level. Income has some effect independently. Wealthier people atomic number 18 more likely to vote regardless of their educational background.Other demographic factors welcome an central influence young people atomic number 18 far less likely to vote than the elderly and single people ar less likely to vote than those who be married. Occupation has litt le effect on turnover with the notable exception of higher voting judge among government employees in some countries. Generally speaking, the unhopefuler voters education level and lower voters income level, the less likely they be to vote. For example, college graduates in some recent election realise had turnout levels roughly twice that of those who have not finished high school.Some individuals possess more politically relevant sources, like income and education, than others, some are more interested in public affairs and some are more likely to be recruited to enroll. These factors arise from too soon socialization at home and in school and from affiliations with voluntary associations, workplaces and religious institutions. earthly concern policies can confer resources, motivate interest in government affairs by trying well-being to government action, bound groups for mobilization and even shape the heart and soul and meaning of antiauthoritarian citizenship.The se effects are positive for some groups, like superior citizens, raising their participation levels. A passel in b drop voters turnout is often cited as a central factor in Jimmy Carters 1976 election victory. Beginning with Parenti (1967), many scholars advanced an ethnic community theory to pardon wherefore members of major ethnic groups in American cities (particularly the Irish, Italians and Jews) participated politically at pass judgment much higher than their levels of education and income would predict.According to this theory, socially marginalized groups certain strong communal norms of participation to which there is considerable pressure within the group to conform. Political and social participation in elections asserts the importance of minority groups within the vauntingly society. As such, all members of the group are expected to have interest. Part 4 How campaign contributions from Political Action Committees may proclivity the political system toward big p ie-eyed interests.Citizens with lower or control incomes speak with a whisper that is at sea on the ears of inattentive government get rid oficials, tour the advantaged roar with a clarity and trunk that policy-makers readily hear and routinely follow. As people become more punishing and the flow of money into elections has grow campaign contributions give the affluent a means to express their voice that is unavailable to most citizens. Government is expected to help ensure equal opportunity for all, not to tilt toward those who already have wealth and power. crimson more clearly, Americans celebrate and expect equal democratic rights.Americans fervently recall that everyone should have an equal say in our democratic politics, helping to shape what government does. They breast whole-heartedly the ideal enunciated by the U. S. Declaration of license that all men are created equal, which in our time means that every citizen regardless of income, gender, race, and ethnicity should have an equal voice in representative government. The government is run by a few big interests spirit out still for themselves. Campaign contributors do not represent the interests of the majority citizens.In 2000, an income of over $ 100,000 was show and in 12 percentage of American households. 95 percent of campaign contributors were from these households. Political contributors or moneyed interests are not bribing politicians directly. What moneyed interests and flush(p) citizens do gain from contributing tremendously is influence on the people who run for office and an audience with these people once they get to power. Essay 2 Part 1 Why the US has only two parties represented in its legislative assembly unlike other established democracies. likewise much adherentship can be fatal to democracy.The weakness of parties can also pose dangers. In a law-makers with weak party attachments, it may seek impossible to pass needed legislation. The solving, as in Yeltsin s Russia is often dawdle to presidential decrees or even the forcible disbanding of the legislature. Conversely, legislators may be easily wooed by a president through financial support or less savory means. In countries with weak parties like the Philippines and Korea, it has been common for presidents elected without a legislative majority to come one through massive party defections.Indeed, one of the areas in which the dozens of new democracies established in the past two decades have been least successfully is the creation of strong and stable political parties act to democracy. In part, this reflects the impossibility of crafting a party system unlike most other key democratic political institutions, parties cannot be legislated into existence. At the same time it reflects a global trend, as political parties seem to be increasingly enfeebled institutions in the more established democracies as well.Almost everywhere, parties no yearlong command the loyalty or impudence they once did and the number of independent voters and ticket-splitters has grown. The US uses the principle of proportional representation which in essence means that parties or blocks of like minded voters should win seats in legislative assemblies to their share of the popular vote. A two party system is the only way to practice this principle. The cultural diversities in US are well catered for in a two party system. Having many parties in such a divers(a) society would mean that the real views of the people would not be reflected.More over a majority would be hard to progress to with many parties being represented in the legislature. Part 2 Why turnout in the US is so low compared to other established democracies? The US is one of the few countries require citizens to get themselves registered to vote, or else than having the government pro-actively making sure that all voters are on the electoral rolls, usually through some form of machinelike and permanent registration on achieving voting age. On the one hand, in the United States, registration requirements are a effective barrier to political participation.There are many reasons why turnout in the US is as low as it is. Voters have to want to go to the polls and believe that their votes will matter. Many voters are alienate from two political parties, turned off by negative campaigning, intimidated by the long ballots, and bothered by the lack of clear accountability in the nutcase guilt federal system. The election laws themselves make it more difficult for people to participate. For example Election Day is usually on a weekday (the first Tuesday in November for presidential and congressional elections) and it may be difficult for people to get away from work to vote.A more direct reduction in participation is brought to the highest degree by laws in many states that bar convicted criminals from the political process. rough five millions Americans are unable to participate in the elections for these reasons. Other countries have found more direct ways to ensure high voter turnout such as making voting compulsory. In Australia, citizens who do not vote are subject to paying a ticket and in Belgium, repeated failure to vote can lead to having your right to vote permanently cancelled. In America voting is not compulsory.The governments of most established countries take the responsibility of registering as many pensionable voters as possible. In the US it is the furbish up responsibility of the individual to register for voting. If the cost and benefits that Americans encounter are markedly contrastive than those encountered by citizens of other countries, then that should explain why the US turnout rate is so low. Americas crotchety registration laws accounted for roughly half the difference between US turnout rates and those of other advanced industrialized democracies in the 1960s and 1970s.Part 3. Advantages and disadvantages of the American style of candidate concentrate on politics. The disintegration of American political parties in recent decades has made readiness of partisanship even more important in predicting who votes. The rise of candidate-centered politics and the decline of partisanship can explain this phenomenon. When the focalise of campaigns was on two parties rather than many candidates for many offices, everyone gained at least clean from picking choosing ones favorite candidates from both parties.Thus even those who did not identify with a party in the past could benefit from the partisan manner by which the campaigns were conducted. In the candidate-centered environment now, by contrast, the mobilizing effects of party emulation have been felt more disproportionately according to ones level of party identification. The result has been rising inequality of turnout rates according to partisan strength. Voters in parliamentary systems are becoming more candidates centered in their voting, compared to voters in pres idential systems.At the same time, it would appear that voters in presidential systems are evaluating candidates in a more subservient and less partisan way. More so than in the past, candidates campaigns are self commensurate organizations indirectly dependent on political parties. And as agents of information, campaigns are replacing parties as the primary source of information about the candidates. Reference Franklin, Mark (2001) The Dynamics of club in the Electoral Process. In Comparing Democracies Elections and Voting in orbicular Perspective 2, ed. Laurence Leduc, Richard Niemi and Pippa Norris. Thousand Oaks CA Sage, in press