Entitlement To Vote

Voting was not always fair, especially for colored people. People who were white could vote without problems. Not only did blacks have rights, but Indians couldn't vote. Soon after almost 100 years Native Americans could finally vote.Today everyone has the right to vote no matter what race they are.

Therefor although citizens may vote for a leader, they will then make decisions based on a small number of peoples view for the majority of the people. The minority ruling the majority.

It is difficult to completely understand and in a way appreciate what the Electoral College is if you don’t understand it. Therefore, this paper will go in depth as to how the voting process works in the United States, with a main focus on the Electoral College.  I will start by talking about the background, what challenges and problems it was trying to solve, how it came to be and who came up with such idea. Secondly, I would talk about the advantages the Electoral College possesses, such as it keeps small states as viable participants, it maintains division of power and how it’s beneficial to the candidates and their campaign. But as with everything, there are also some disadvantages that come with such, example, ignoring the will of the

However, a major aspect of democracy is majority rule. This majority vote can be influenced by predominate structures that only provide one forced option. Additionally, majority rule can prevent the deliberation with the minority group. As Crick defines politics, there must be deliberation and compromise with all parties (21). The minority in result of democracy can lose its voice. Crick states, “The late Ernest Bevin once told a Trade Union Conference that it was not democratic for a minority to continue to question the decisions of a majority- and he received equally sincere and astonishing reply that democracy meant that he could say what he liked, when he liked, how he liked” (57). Therefore, majority rule in democracy eliminates the process of compromise with both the majority and minority. A process that is needed in

Shaw provides a good point when he states: “Going through rehabilitation and reintegration, ex-felons become part of a law-abiding society with the same privileges as others in the society, proponents for voting rights argue.” If they go through these things to become a part of society again, then why are they not allowed the right to vote? This must be an upsetting process for those felons that want to become a part of society again and actually care to make a difference. All that they want to do is to be granted one of the basic fundamental rights guaranteed to citizens. I mean that’s the least they should get after going through the process that they do. It is only fair for them to obtain the right to vote again because at the end of the day they did what was required of them to become a part of society again and what is the use of that if they cannot even vote?

Ever since the advent of democratic systems of political decision-making in Ancient Greece, one of the primary concerns about democratic functioning has been the principle of majority rule. Whether a majoritarian system is divisive in its essence, paves the way for demagoguery, or obstructs minority groups from having a fair say in public affairs, criticisms of majority rule have and still persist nowadays. Indeed, notorious political figures such as Hamilton, Madison or Mill expressed concerns about the potential threat of a tyranny of the majority which would infringe on citizens’ fundamental rights. Moreover and recently, the outcome of the Brexit referendum has renewed the debate around majority rule and its flaws. However, within the context of the contemporary world in which democracy prevails, majority rule is the norm many states follow. Why is this so; how can majority rule be defended and what are its limits? In order to provide an articulate and coherent answer, it is first necessary to lay down some premises to the functioning of the democratic process. Then, after arguing for majority rule, its flaws shall be assessed before eventually drawing potential alternatives from such dysfunctions.

In the United State there are 5.6 million people serving their time behind bars with many of their rights stripped away. Among these rights is the right to vote. Is this a right that the states can remove? This fact brings to light three main questions. First, do American inmates have the right to vote under American laws or the Constitution? Second, how would allowing inmates to vote change the face of elections? Finally, should inmates have the right to vote based on ethical premises? Today, we will attempt to answer these questions.

When the United States was still in its infancy, state versus national citizenship had no clear distinction due to the fact that noncitizen suffrage “was not controversial because voting rights were based on property and race, not citizenship” (Renshon 2008). Although it was without meaning, a precedent was set for which people were to vote in America’s elections: white men. Professor Leon E. Aylsworth (1931), a political science professor who assisted in the drafting of several laws in the Nebraska legislature stated in his article, “The Passing of Alien Suffrage” that:

Since the establishment of our great country, Americans utilized the ballot box as a freedom of expression. Voting is a basic right that many of us take for granted, some even viewing it as a “God given right.” As citizens, we expect the right to vote. Many oblivious to the fact that voting is a privilege that can be revoked. The process, commonly referred to as disenfranchisement, is the principle reason for my summary. Today more than ever, one of America's post-election concerns is voter turnout. Usually, the numbers are bleak, especially during local elections. As a society, we cannot afford to turn our back on one of the pillars of a democracy. If elected officials are to represent segments of voters, then people from all

Richard Bellamy says that our dissatisfaction with our current democracy stems from our comparison with the “ideal” democracy we have imagined. Our “ideal” democracy would be direct participatory, meaning everyone is equally involved in making law. Also, there is no prejudice or private interest in this imaginary democracy. As nice as that system of government may sound, with it come a lot of problems. First of all, to vote on all decisions is too time-consuming and would be too much of a commitment expected from the citizens. Next, people can only rule themselves if they can come to a unanimous conclusion on every decision they have to make. If this doesn’t happen, the minority of voters will be ruled by the majority anyways. A more practical

I agree with our forefathers that majority rule is the fairest way to hold any type of election . Klassen is correct in stating that when a majority gets their way, a minority does not. But again, he offers no alternative to our way of voting. He also used the word “ruled” when referring to the minority in order to make our system of voting seem as though it causes injustice. While we do live in a state that is governed by laws, I would not go so far as to say that we are a country that is “ruled.” In my opinion, the word “ruled” implies unfair, harsh treatment or injustice of some kind. I do not believe that our system of electing leaders leaves a minority to be “ruled.” I believe that

Eligibility to vote in elections is the focus for mostly all Americans. This is due to the fact that if someone does not meet the requirements, then they are not eligible to vote in the election. On the Votes PA website, it is stated that to be eligible to vote in Pennsylvania, one has to be: a citizen of the United States for at least one month before the next primary, special, municipal, or general election; a resident of Pennsylvania and the election district in which you want to register and vote for at least 30 days before the next primary, special, municipal, or general election; and lastly, has to be At least 18 years of age on or before the day of the next primary, special, municipal, or general election. Within the United States, rules and regulations for voter registration are all different in some ways. For example to vote in new jersey someone must be: A United States citizen, at least 17 years old, and understand that

A weakness of democracy is the “Tyranny of the Majority”. This is an inevitable pitfall, because in a democracy, the power is vested foremost in the people the constituting the society itself. Alexis de Tocqueville wrote on this concept:

Young adults in current times have grown up with many rights that have not always been considered a right but instead a privilege. Voting is one of these rights that was once only considered a privilege, eligible for a particular gender and ethnicity. For many years this meant that the only group of people allowed to vote were white males. Today, things are different and everyone has the choice to vote after they reach the age of eighteen. The right to vote is a powerful right that we must take advantage of because not every country is lucky enough to have a say in their government. Today, in America we have the opportunity to decide if we would like to vote or not. Many Americans take pride in this right as it is considered a civic duty that has not always been eligible to everyone.

Due to society, cultural diversity troubles the mode of governess. This is because at times there are circumstances where cultural ideologies oppress other cultures and limit the concept of a democratic