American Election

Proponents also point out that, far from diminishing minority interests by depressing voter participation, the electoral College actu on the wholey enhances the status of minority groups. This is so because the votes of raze small minorities in a submit may beget the difference between winning all of that states electoral votes or none of that states electoral votes. And since ethnical minority groups in the United States happen to concentrate in those states with the most electoral votes, they assume an importance to presidential candidates well out of proportion to their number.The same principle applies to a nonher(prenominal) special interest groups such as labor unions, farmers, environmentalists and so forth. Most states use a winner-take-all form, in which the candidate with the most votes in that state receives all of the states electoral votes. This gives candidates an incentive to pay the most attention to states without a clear favorite, such as Pennsylvania, Ohio an d Florida.For example, California, Texas and New York, in spite of having the largest populations, occupy in fresh elections been considered safe for a particular fellowship Democratic for California & New York republican for Texas, and in that respectfore candidates typically devote relatively few resources, in both time and money, to such states It is possible to win the election by winning all of el withal states and disregarding the rest of the country. In the close elections of 2000 and 2004, these eleven states gave 111 votes to Republican candidate George W.Bush and 160 votes to Democratic candidates Al Gore and John Kerry. Part 2. How the electoral College system in the general election fail to ensure that the presidential candidate who wins the most votes becomes president. One way in which a minority president could be elected is if the country were so deeply divided governmentally that there were three or much presidential candidates split the electoral votes among them such that no one obtained the necessary majority. This occurred in 1824 and was successfully attempted in 1948.Those who object to the Electoral College system and favor a direct popular election generally do so on four grounds the hazard of electing a minority president, the risk of so-called faith little electors, the possible role of the Electoral College in depressing voter turn out and its failure to accurately reflect the national popular will. A faithless voter is one who pledge to vote for his or her partys candidate for president precisely nevertheless votes for an some other candidate.In this way the Electoral College may fail to ensure that the presidential candidate who has the most votes becomes president. On the concern of the possible role of the Electoral College in depressing voter turn out critics argue that since each state is entitled to the same number of electoral votes regardless of its voter tackle, there is no incentive to encourage voter participati on. The college fails to accurately reflect the national popular will in at least two respects. First the scattering of Electoral votes in the college tends to over-represent tidy sum in rural 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 than or less reflects the states population size) plus the number of members it has in the senate (which is always two regardless 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 mechanism whereby the presidential candidate who wins the most poplar votes in the state wins all the Electoral votes of that state.One effect of this mechanism is to make it extremely baffling for third-party or sovereign candidates ever to make much of showing in the Electoral College. If for example, a third party or independent candidate were to win the support of even a s many as 25% of the voters nationwide, he faculty 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 not be reflected.By thus failing to accurately reflect the national popular will, the disceptation goes, the Electoral College reinforces a two party system, discourages third party or independent candidates and thereby tends to restrict choice available to the electorate. Part 3 How several(prenominal) groups have much higher disturbance rates than? Low turnout is often considered to be undesirable and there is much debate over the factors that tinge turnout and how to increase it. Its case has been attributed to a wide array of economic, demographic, cultural, technological and institutional factors.A high turnover is generally seen as evidence of the legitimacy of the contemporary system. Socioeconomic factors significantly affect whether or not individuals vote. The most important socioeconomic factor in voter turnout is education. The more educated a person, the more app bent he or she is to vote, even when controlled for other factors such as income and class that are closely associated with education level. Income has some effect independently. Wealthier lot are more likely to vote regardless of their educational background.Other demographic factors have an important influence young passel are far less likely to vote than the elderly and single people are less likely to vote than those who are married. Occupation has little effect on turnover with the notable exception of higher voting rates among regimen employees in many countries. Generally speaking, the lower voters education level and lower voters income level, the less likely they are to vote. For example, college graduates in some recent election have had turnout levels nearly twice that of those who have not finished high school.Some individuals possess mo re 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 participate. These factors arise from early socialization at home and in school and from affiliations with voluntary associations, workplaces and religious institutions. Public policies can confer resources, motivate interest in government affairs by trying well-being to government action, define groups for mobilization and even shape the content and meaning of democratic citizenship.These effects are positive for some groups, like senior citizens, raising their participation levels. A surge in black voters turnout is often cited as a of import factor in Jimmy Carters 1976 election victory. Beginning with Parenti (1967), many scholars advanced an ethnic community theory to explain why members of major ethnic groups in American cities (particularly the Irish, Italians and Jews) participated politically at rates much higher th an their levels of education and income would predict.According to this theory, socially marginalized groups developed strong communal norms of participation to which there is capacious pressure within the group to conform. Political and social participation in elections asserts the importance of minority groups within the larger society. As such, all members of the group are expected to have interest. Part 4 How campaign contributions from Political Action Committees may tilt the political system toward big cockeyed interests.Citizens with lower or moderate incomes speak with a whisper that is lost on the ears of inattentive government officials, while the advantaged roar with a clarity and consistency that policy-makers readily try out and routinely follow. As people become more concentrated and the flow of money into elections has grow campaign contributions give the affluent a means to transport their voice that is unavailable to most citizens. Government is expected to help ensure satisfactory opportunity for all, not to tilt toward those who already have wealth and power. regular(a) more clearly, Americans celebrate and expect equal democratic rights.Americans fervently believe that everyone should have an equal say in our democratic politics, helping to shape what government does. They embrace whole-heartedly the ideal enunciated by the U. S. Declaration of Independence 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 looking out only for themselves. Campaign contributors do not represent the interests of the majority citizens.In 2000, an income of over $ 100,000 was found only in 12 percent of American households. 95 percent of campaign contributors were from these households. Political contributors or moneyed interests are not bribing politicians directly. What moneyed i nterests and wealthy citizens do gain from contributing hugely 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 legislature unlike other established democracies. Too much discipleship can be fatal to democracy.The worn outness of parties can also pose dangers. In a legislature with weak party attachments, it may prove impossible to pass needed legislation. The result, as in Yeltsins Russia is often resort to presidential decrees or even the strong-arm disbanding of the legislature. Conversely, legislators may be easily wooed by a president through patronage 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 acquire one through massive party defections.Indeed, one of the areas in which the dozens of new democracies established in the past two decades ha ve been least successfully is the creation of strong and stable political parties committed 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 calculate to be increasingly enfeebled institutions in the more established democracies as well.Almost everywhere, parties no longer command the loyalty or confidence 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 appoint 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 diverse society would mean th at the real views of the people would not be reflected.More over a majority would be hard to achieve 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, rather than having the government pro-actively making sure that all voters are on the electoral rolls, usually through some form of automatic and permanent enrollment on achieving voting age. On the one hand, in the United States, registration requirements are a serious 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 disaffected from two political parties, turned off by negative campaigning, frighten by the long ballots, and bothered by the lack of clear accountability in the crazy guilt federal system. The elec tion 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 about by laws in many states that bar convicted criminals from the political process. most 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 fine and in Belgium, tell 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 province of registering as many eligible voters as possible. In the US it is the sole responsibility of the individual to register for voti ng. If the costs and benefits that Americans encounter are markedly antithetic than those encountered by citizens of other countries, then that should explain why the US turnout rate is so low. Americas unique registration laws accounted for roughly fractional 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 centered politics. The lour of American political parties in recent decades has made strength 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 focus of campaigns was on two parties rather than many candidates for many offices, everyone gained at least somewhat 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 m anner by which the campaigns were conducted. In the candidate-centered environment now, by contrast, the mobilizing effects of party competition 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 presidential systems.At the same time, it would appear that voters in presidential systems are evaluating candidates in a more instrumental and less partisan way. More so than in the past, candidates campaigns are self sufficient 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 Participation in the Electoral mould. In Comparing Democracies Elections and Voting in Global Perspective 2, ed . Laurence Leduc, Richard Niemi and Pippa Norris. Thousand Oaks CA Sage, in press