Election Dbq

The Electoral College is an excuse of the electoral process, proving itself to be undemocratic, false in representation, and harmful to third-parties. Therefore, the Electoral College should be abolished, and the process should rely on the popular vote to have the leading judgement in the election procedure for a new president. The Electoral College has proven that a candidate may not need to win the popular vote of the people of the nation in order to win the presidential election. But first, beforehand, let me introduce the system in which the Electoral Process is based upon. The Electoral Process is the government’s created system of indirect voting in order to elect the nation’s president.

During the era of Andrew Jackson’s presidency, the nation seemed to be split down the middle in terms of its citizens. Obviously this is not meant to be taken literally, as the citizens of the United States were divided in terms of political views, morals, and other very important topics. One of these topics happened to be the act of expanding suffrage to people other than rich landowners. Both arguments in this debate were represented with a number of different types of evidence as to why each side was the correct way to go about shaping the way people voted in the United States and why the opposing opinion was not to be trusted. There were both pros and cons of expanding suffrage in the United States, but some were more valid than others.

There was a certain big change in economic and social changes in the United States since 1800. The election of 1800 was between John Adams and Andrew Jackson, which was an emotional and hard-fought campaign. Each side in this campaign thought that the opponent in which would victor, would ruin the nation. Federalists had actually attacked Jackson as an un-Christian deist because they believed his sympathy for the French Revolution would bring similar bloodshed and chaos to the U.S. Overall, the Federalists wanted strong Federal Authority to restrain the excess of popular majorities, while the Democratic-Republicans wanted to reduce national authority so the people would be able to rule through state governments.

Political parties today started to form in the late 1600’s. In 1787, Hamilton and other leaders joined and called themselves the Federalist. The Federalist party is the party which is most qualified for the presidency because the Federalist want a central government, want to avoid foreign affairs, and also want a central banking system. First a strong central governments.

The 1980 presidential election of the United States featured three primary candidates, Republican Ronald Reagan, Democrat Jimmy Carter and liberal Republican John Anderson. Ronald Reagan was the governor of California before he decided to run for the presidency. John Anderson was a representative in Illinois and Carter was the incumbent. The lengthy Iran hostage crisis sharpened public opinions by the beginning of the election season. In the 1970s, the United States were experiencing a straining episode of low economic growth, high price increases and interest rates and an irregular energy crisis. The sense of discomfort in both domestic and foreign affairs in the nation were heading downward, this added to the downward spiral that was already going on. Between Carter, Anderson and Reagan, the general election campaign of the 1980s seemed more concerned with shadowboxing around political issues rather than a serious discussion of the issues that concerned voters.

In the year 1787 the founding fathers met in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to discuss and revise the Articles of Confederation. During the revision, Framers were faced with many issues including the process of electing a president. Some agreed that the president should be elected by a direct vote of the people, while others thought that the people were not capable enough of electing the highest position in the American Government. This compromise is known as the Electoral College. The Electoral College is a very poor system for present day America because it cheats larger states out of their fair representation, and also fails to reflect the majority's will. Many people argue

History has shown us that some leaders are great and others are not. Such as George Washington who was a great leader and the people loved him. King George III did not have a great reputation in the colonies of America. They were not happy with how he was leading and taxing the colonies. After America became free, a new way of electing a leader was needed.

Thomas Jefferson’s election commenced a new era in American government in many ways. First and foremost, the election of 1800 marked the first peaceful transition in power from one political party to another. Subsequently, Jefferson's beliefs in the federal government were reflected in his policies in a number of ways. Lastly, the case of Marbury v. Madison left an influential impact on the judicial branch of government.

Some choose to argue for keeping the electoral college. One reason they do this is because it was part of the Constitution’s framers’ plan, “Historically, federalism [the combination of a central government with some authority given to state and local governments] is central to our grand constitutional effort to constrain power” (Document C). One can assume that the framers put the electoral college system in place to prevent one form of government from becoming too powerful. After much consideration, the Constitution's framers’ believed that the electoral college would be the best way to prevent a tyrannical president from taking office. Another reason why people argue for keeping the electoral college is because it boosts the power of small states,

I believe that before the presidential election of 2008 the group of people who would most likely vote is people ranging from 30 to 65 years old. The reason is people usually around 30 to 65 years old are in a stage of their life where they’ve established their homes, probably have a stable job, and settled in their communities. So, those who usually come from a stable community roots are more likely to have reason and greater resources to becoming involved in politics and to vote. However, over the recent years younger generations are starting to vote because of mobilization through social media. This new technology allows candidates to really engage the younger people by websites like Facebook which will help them become informed on polls,

Assess the extent to which incumbents have an adage over challengers in congressional elections. (25marks)

Excellent point you made, yes, we are in an election year and both of the candidates are using everything they have to their favor and against the other candidate to persuade us to see their points of views and how one is better than the other for America and Americans. Just like you say people use manipulation to benefit just themselves, they do not think or care about the other person they are egocentric. We also see how children use manipulation to get something from their parents, they cry, throw fits when they cannot get what they want, and some parents fall for it.

On July 6, 1854 on the outskirts of Jackson, Michigan, 10,000 people turned out for a mass meeting "Under the Oaks." This meeting led to the first organized party convention in Pittsburgh on February 22, 1856. Then on June 17, 1856 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the Republican Representative announced the birth of the Republican Party as a unified political force with one mission: to create a stronger and freer America. The Republican Party was born through the blood and tears of righteous men and continues to be upheld by the belief system it so strongly stands by. This believe system was fabricated by the main principles that this nation was based upon, and still hold true today. Unlike other political parties, the Republican Party is a conservative system that puts its faith in the people of America, rather than in its government. Therefore, I’m not going to lie, but Republicans are fly.

Among many political issues in the election seasons of 2012 and 2016, voter identification has become a prominent talking point among candidates and subsequently all of America. Voter identification laws require that prospective voters to show some form of state-provided identification in order to be able to cast a ballot. The ones who create these laws proclaim that they are in order to reduce voter fraud in elections, but the real purpose is something much more sinister. The true reason so many people support voter identification laws is because they suppress minorities from voting, usually helping the Republican party. Minorities have a harder time acquiring valid identification, and therefore are more negatively impacted by these laws.

     Rather than government providing millions of dollars for the campaign and putting harsh restricts on individual donations, I believe that the limits should not be put on the American people but on the candidates themselves. Spending on the campaign has gotten out of control within the last decade. Millions of taxpayer dollars are being spend on mobile campaigns, advertisements, and media exposure. This funding could easily go towards other areas of society, benefiting the very people that the candidates wish to govern. Rather than directing negative attention, I believe that candidates should reach out to the public to gain support. Campaigning for presidency should not be about winning or who raises the most money. Presidency should be about protecting and caring for the American people. The conduct of campaigns should be monitored in order to limit spending and to prevent negative advertising towards opposite candidates.