Electoral Process Analysis

In conclusion, President George Bush’s letter shows how united the world is against Iraq’s aggression. Twenty-eight countries would give military aid and one hundred governments would agree with the United States position. Iraq has no allies in their takeover of Kuwait. Bush’s threats of military action challenge Saddam Hussein’s arrogance and sense of infallibility. Warnings of the destruction of Iraq’s military and loss of life would be on the hands of Hussein himself. The United States would not be responsible for Iraq’s losses. Again, the primary audience for this letter is Hussein himself, because in a dictatorship such as Iraq, the people themselves are deprived of such information. Brute

There is a number of systems that use PR such as the Single Transferable Vote (STV) (the Regional and National Lists) and the Alternative Vote. There is a third system that combines these two, known as the Additional Member System (AMS) or the hybrid or top-up system. The AMS system is presently used in elections for the Scottish Parliament, where voters can vote for single candidates in their constituencies but also for candidates from regional 'lists' put forward by each party. If there is a discrepancy between the percentage of seats the party has won and the percentage of votes cast, the seats are 'topped up' from the

When one thinks of Iraq war, the two key players are perceived to be George W. Bush and Saddam Hussein. As leaders of the opposing sides, they are also perceived as the decision makers. In the individual and sub group levels of analysis, toppling of the Hussein’s regime in Iraq was a success. This success

Bush, asserted that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), multiple Iraqi human rights violations stemming from the WMDs, and the suspected Iraqi support for al-Qa’ida, who had been previously chased out of Afghanistan. After the initial invasion, however, U.S.-led Coalition Forces were unable to locate any significant evidence of WMDs. Back in the U.S., investigative committees subsequently concluded that Iraq possessed no WMDs and did not harbor any connections to terrorist organizations. Moreover, Hussein had been successful at evading capture despite an intensive manhunt, and U.S. forces seemingly were unable to play a domestic security role, further leading to the dissolution of Iraqi security services and ushering in widespread looting and disorder. This highlighted that the invasion of Iraq was not be an easy victory as originally surmised. Since that time, many scholars have focused on the effects of the Iraq War, speculating on the Bush Administration’s motives for the decision. While some within scholarly circles have attributed the invasion of Iraq to groupthink, a theory that has recently become a staple in understanding foreign policy disasters, there is little literature that has been applied to the rationality of the decision to invade and whether groupthink influenced the decision-making process. Therefore, this paper will seek to examine the decision to launch the invasion of Iraq and the clearly failed planning for the occupation of the

The first step in establishing an Iraqi threat was to demonstrate that Iraq possessed WMD, meaning chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, and the means to deliver these weapons. The possession of these weapons would be in direct violation of U.N. resolutions put into effect after the Gulf War and hopefully justify any use of force under international law. Time and time again the Bush administration put forth statements that, “Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving even closer to developing a nuclear weapon.” In February of 2003, one month before the U.S. waged war on Iraq, Secretary of State Colin Powell brought the administration’s case for war before the United Nations Security Council in an effort to garner U.N. support for an effort to disarm Iraq. By one count, “Powell made twenty-nine claims about Iraqi weapons, programs, behaviors,

WHO: is involved in the Electoral College process and what is their role? (e.g. voters, candidates, electors, state official(s), members of our federal government)?

With war, there are politics. With politics, there may be war. The perspective of man has a monumental impact even on the most minuet things to greater issues that affect society as a whole. Within the realm of politics, specifically the United States, there is democracy in which constituents choose their representatives. There is a general understanding that these representatives are elected to provide the best representation and voice of the people; however, the public’s opinion and the responsibility of utilitarianism of the country that the President must consider can sometimes collide. The rise of Osama Bin Laden and formation of the terrorist group, al Qaeda, with its terroristic

Stolen elections, a connotation for rigged, worry many voters. When Trump was directly asked if he thought that the elections of this year were going to be rigged, he didn’t give a direct answer. In fact, he implied that Obama’s election 8 years ago was rigged. In the description it states that the election might possibly be stole. It implies that trump is commenting on how the election might be rigged, not him stating that it might be rigged. This is a technique that is used to show that Trump was the one who was making an illiterate comment like he usually does about the election being rigged, rather than it being an issue that he is commenting on. as interpreted from trump. The audience they are trying to reach out to are undecided voters.

Would a direct popular election correct the disenfranchisement of voters caused by the modern Electoral College?

Every four years, on the third Monday, in October, Canadians take part in elections ("Canada Federal Election 2015." ). Candidates go around within their electoral district to talk about the ideas they have and changes they hope to change. The position that candidates are running for, is to become part of the House of Commons ("House of Commons of Canada."). Elections are going to take place on Monday, October 19, 2015; voters can go to the polls and vote for candidates that will represent them ("Canada Federal Election 2015." ). Canada has fixed elections in order to have election on a regular cycle, but can occur before the “said date” ("Fixed Election Dates In Canada."). Overall, elections for House of Commons are preferred to occur,

The electoral process is the system used to elect the president of the United States. First, approximately 24 months before the election, candidates begin fundraising; it is also during this period that candidates begin talking to party leadership and support (interest) groups. Next, about 12 months before the election, a candidate declares their candidacy and forms their campaign committee. Sometime during January and February, candidates give speeches to raise funds and gather donors; it is important to do well during this time in order to have a chance at sufficient funding throughout the campaign process. Then, in March, candidates campaign in “Super Tuesday” states; during this time candidates attend debates, raise some more funds, and do their best to win over delegates. During July and August, the selected candidate settles on their vice president during the party convention; it is also during this time when candidates begin to talk with party leaders in order to build a good campaign platform. Over the course of the Fall season presidential candidates work against their opponents through debates and advertising. On the first Tuesday (after the first Monday) in

In 2003, President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell launched an invasion of the nation of Iraq. United States Secretary of State Colin Powell outlined the reasons Iraq posed a threat to international security in a speech he gave at the United Nations. Iraq’s nuclear weapons program concerned the Bush administration. Fearing Iraq might use this program to act aggressively in the region, and wanting to secure oil supplies and a friendly regime, the administration pursued a plan of action to remove Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from power (FLS 2016, 43). A constant secure supply of oil stood as a cornerstone of the military-industrial complex thriving in the United States and a friendly regime in such an oil rich country remained an important objective of President Bush. This directly conflicted with the desire of President Saddam Hussein of Iraq to remain in power.

Rather than how many votes a candidate receive in the ballot, the president is decided by the number of electoral votes. Every state has a number of electors who have one vote each. The number of electors per state is generally proportional to its size and population. So, the more districts there are in a state, the more representatives there are in that state the more electors they get in the election. For example, California has 55 electoral votes while there are seven smaller states with only three electoral votes each. Electors are expected to vote for the candidate who wins the majority of a state’s popular vote. In 48 states there is a winner takes all methods with electors votes awarded as a single bloc. For example, if over 50% of people vote democrat in Florida the democrats receive all 29 of the state’s electoral votes. Main and Nebraska are the exceptions, dishing their votes out proportionally. In the event of a tie the House of Representatives and the senate vote for the president and vice president.

The presidential election process is a long and complicated procedure. Currently, we elect our president and vice-president by an indirect device known as the Electoral College. Under this system, each state has as many electors as it has representatives and senators. Candidates who win a plurality of the popular vote in a state secure all the states electoral votes. In order to win a presidential election, a candidate must appeal successfully to the big states, such as California and Texas. Many people are dissatisfied with our country's current election process. A candidate could win the popular vote but lose the electoral vote, and thus lose the presidency. This method has led to a lot of controversies and may eventually lead to election reforms.

In August of 2002, the Bush administration’s position about Iraq had changed significantly. Prior to this point, the United States and other western countries had been arming Iraq with weapons of every type. The fact the United States and other countries had been arming Iraq with weapons, shows how little they considered Iraq to be a threat. This quickly changed. A debate on invading Iraq, held by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, created