Essay On Fairness In American Elections

Corporate advantage is often times very controversial in government, from funding candidates with money, to swaying the mind of the voters, to making PACs and superPACs; this topic is not at rest with the F.E.C. or other government programs or agencies. In this case we see “Citizens United” ,a special interest group, fight with the F.E.C. about this advantage and the right to set restrictions on spending money for the purpose of engaging in political speech. In a 5-4 decision, Some may think that the court ruled correctly on corporate expenditures ; yet lots of people think that this advantage is corrupt, here’s why.

The First Amendment has been one of the most controversial issues surrounding the Constitutions since its ratification in 1787. The First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Many people disagree on the extent of power the First Amendment actually has on the right to free speech. One of the most controversial issues surrounding the First Amendment is how much influence a company can have over elections and

Gerrymandering is defined as the establishment of boundaries of voting districts with the main objective of determining the partial or complete outcome of elections. Gerrymanders are designed with the main objective of insuring the defeat of specific individuals or electing political allies. There are a number of objectives of gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is usually carried out in order to allow for the reelection of incumbents or for the party in power to win more seats in an election than the number to which its percentage of the total vote properly entitles it. This only serves to subvert the will of the people since it denies them the amount of voting power that they are entitled

Being able to cast my first vote in the 21st century is a privilege. My generation needs to accept their patriotic responsibility and vote because many reforms are needed in order to carry us into the new millennium. Voting reforms are necessary to inspire political participation for other modifications and adjustments needed in areas such as health care, education, and Social Security, all which we as young people will face in the future. Participation in elections is necessary to facilitate and enable progress, but our present day system of voting is expiring by frustrated Americans.

     In the following essay I will be talking about the disadvantages and advantages of partisan elections for state politics. I will also examine the last couple year’s election results and costs. Finally, I will discuss if partisanship made a difference in the vote, as well as if a judge should be decided by partisan vote. In the next couple paragraphs I will talk more specifically about these topics.

Voting has not always been as easy as it is today. It is interesting to examine how far America has progressed in its process of allowing different types of people to be able to vote. Voting was once aimed at a particular group of people, which were white males that owned their own property. Today, most people over the age of eighteen can vote, except for the mentally incompetent or people who have been convicted of major felonies in some states. The decline of voter participation has always been a debate in the public arena. According to McDonald and Popkin, it is “the most important, most familiar, most analyzed, and most conjectured trend in recent American political history (2001, 963)” The question is, how important is voter

Texas has a controversial way of electing its judges. When Texas became a state in 1845, judges were appointed by the governor with Senate consent, but since 1876, judges at all levels of courts have been elected by the people in partisan elections. The main problem with this system is partisan elections lead to more campaign contributions and increased partisanship among judge which hinders fair and independent judiciary system.

The demons of a misinterpreted judicial review have corrupted the legislature, the courts, and our political process. In 2010, the Supreme Court struck down the McCain-Feingold Act as unconstitutional. The landmark Citizens United v Federal Elections Commission decision ruled that political spending is a form of free speech and corporations have license to contribute exorbitant amounts to politicians. Citizens United ensures denies the voices of citizens as representatives are beholden to outside interests rather than their constituency. I, Justice John B. Gibson, hold that the power of judicial review is too widely interpreted and, to keep government officials accountable, must be vested in the masses to rediscover some twinge of our once budding representative democracy.

When I thought of the topic Gerrymandering, I thought perhaps it would be too far-fetched when it came to the Rubric designed in a women studies class. But, on further review of the subject matter I realized how important this practice is to study, and how it can be used for both good and evil concepts in the political scheme of things.

Resolved: On balance, the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is undemocratic.

The president is elected by a group of people called electors and each state has a number of electors equal to their congressional delegation. During the presidential election, a smaller group of representatives, at state level, give the final decision of the presidential election. Throughout numerous elections, only four occurrences where the candidate could not be agreed upon. In 1800, Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr received the same amount of electoral votes, resulting in the House of Representatives breaking the tie. In 1876’s presidental election, the popular vote went to Democrat Samuel Tilden, however a commission voted for Republican Rutherford B. Hayes as the winner. In 1888 the popular vote candidate, Grover cleveland, did not win the election but rather Benjamin Harrison due to the electoral votes. Just recently in 2000, George W. Bush won the majority of electoral votes, even though AL Gore won the popular vote.

On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Citizens United v Federal Election Commission allowed for corporations and capitalist enterprises to be treated as individuals during an election period. This ruling allows corporations to spend or give an unlimited amount of money in contributions to their party or candidate of choice in any given election. With the loss of corporate financial regulations, our entire political system runs the risk of being corrupted by corporations whose sole objective is to satisfy its share-holders. This ruling affects all Americans their "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness." President Barack Obama had this to say about the ruling:

The debate on the efficacy and fairness of the Electoral College is one that has lasted since the birth of the United States. At its core, it is a compromise between states small and large to spread presidential voting power more evenly between them. It is a point of major contention since it removes some power from states with higher population and gives it to the those with lower populations. This contention has only been exacerbated by recent presidential races that have been won via Electoral College votes, but lost based on the popular vote. While the Electoral College does not represent the people directly, it is the superior system for electing a president that cares about the entire country rather than just large cities.

After the last presidential election, which is still underway apparently, there is much controversy over what should happen to the Electoral College system. There are people who say that the Electoral College is good but should be modified to meet the needs of the modern world. There are those who say that the Electoral College system is too outdated to be modified and should be entirely eliminated. Finally there are those who say that it is has stood the test of time and is still the best system for our country.

To combat too much political influence from advertising, the federal government passed a law called the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) or as it’s more commonly known, the McCain-Feingold Act. The BCRA sought to expand disclosure on soft money and changed some limits on hard money. The key piece of this legislation is the electioneering communications statute, or section 203. This piece of BCRA was intended to limit the influence of PACs by restricting their ability to air advertisements right before elections. McCain-Feingold prevented corporations and PACs from showing political commercials sixty days before an election and thirty days before a primary (FEC BCRA 90).