Freakonomics : Ten Ideas For Make Politics Less Rotten

The first proposal, of changing the electoral system for the House of Representatives, would mean that each state is represented in proportion to its population. This entails that states with higher populations will receive more votes because they have more seats in the House. Less populous states may argue against this reform because they will have a disadvantage when it comes to voting on legislation. However, the reform also includes having each state serve as electoral districts. In this case, multi-member districts will be needed—proportional representation will require a larger district magnitude. Having these territorial subdivisions will help create an efficient legislative system because there would be less possibility of manipulating the votes—not as relevant to election results when seats are proportional. Having the votes distributed in this manner may help avoid a deadlock and therefore, allow for a faster process when passing legislation. In addition, minorities will have chance to be represented by possibly gaining a seat in a particular district—a highly populous

The advantages to the proportional representation system are numerous. More women would be represented, racial and ethnic minorities would not be overlooked, and issue-oriented campaigns would arise. Elections would become more exciting to the public because their voice and vote will make a difference. "Winner take all" will no longer exist. Americans

One can come to a conclusion that plurality systems have a major flaw and that is inequality. Adopting a MMP would be a huge step forward in Canadian democracy. With a MMP system in place, more women would be elected to the legislature because it creates fairness. With more women in the legislature, it can make a substantial difference in the types of laws that may be proposed and passed. Another advantage MMP brings to Canada is instead of electing one member of the legislature in each small district, Canada would use larger districts to elect several members. To add to this advantage, the candidates that win the seats in these multi-member districts are determined by the proportion of votes each party receives. With Canada’s current electoral system, one citizen’s vote counts for less than another citizen’s vote. By changing to a MMP system, Canada can give more equality and fairness back to the citizens.

One alternative voting procedure that will alleviate the lack of voter participation is proportional representation (PR). Through the implementation of a PR system, the voice of more American voters can be heard-and a more representative government created. The exorbitant amount of wasted votes that exist under today's system will be greatly reduced. The lower threshold of votes needed to elect a candidate under PR will allow smaller groups to elect representative officials more in tune with their political philosophy without the having to constitute the majority of the voting body. This also translates into the vote of each person carrying a greater weight, thus giving that person more of an incentive to become involved in the political process. By providing a greater number of people voting incentives, paired with the increased likelihood that third-party candidates can be voted in, PR insures a more representative government that will better serve the American people.

The growing ideological gap between the United States’ two major political parties, in other words, rising levels of political polarization, has had a negative impact on American politics as it results in Congressional inefficient, public apathy, and economic inequality.

In the past century, people continued to express an increasingly discontent view of Congress especially true when one looks back before the Clinton Impeachment debacle As the size of the nation and the number of congressman have grown, the congress has come under attack by both public influences and congressman themselves. Yet looking at one congressman's relationship with his or her constituents, it would be hard to believe that this is the branch of government that has come under suspect. In "If Ralph Nader says congress is 'The broken branch,' how come we love our congressman so much?" author Richard F. Fenno, Jr., provides insight into this view and why, through congress coming under fire, constituents still feel positively about

Even though the Proportional Representation system sounds like it could be a good thing for the United States, I think that the system we use now works best for our country. I think we should stick to what we have been doing for all these years. No system is ever going to be perfect but since we are familiar to how our system works, we should just keep it. I feel as though adding more parties would just be too much and get a little out of hand. With the Proportional Representation system I see the votes getting split up between too many parties, therefore there will not be one candidate that is over powering the rest.

In the “Redrawing the Electoral Map: Reforming The Electoral College With the District-Popular Plan,” Craig J. Herbst discusses the reformation of the Electoral College, using a different method for elections, and the U.S. Constitution. The author argues that District-Popular Plan method is better for the nation because if it is used candidates will have put more effort into developing strategies for the popular vote, and people would be more knowledgeable about politics with those developments. Herbst notes that District-Popular Plan can help groups of people who are disadvantaged and underrepresented. He also states that the only and the best way to do this to have a constitutional amendment which is so hard to pass. Ultimately, he concludes the article with explaining the benefits of having the District-Popular Plan. Craig J. Herbst’s article was published in Hofstra Law Review which is and academic and credible source because it is peer-reviewed by experts on the issue. The purpose of this source is to inform people about the Electoral College and the U.S Constitution, and an alternative way for the Electoral College. I will use this source to get more information

Dellis argues that this Plurality voting procedure is simply a way to waste a citizens vote and I completely agree because these voters are not sharing an interest with a major candidate leading them to either not vote or vote because they really have no choice. When a candidate does not have a chance or has it really difficult to be placed in a ballot, it limits them to show the kind of work they are up for or what their party platform may look like. These are the barriers that need to be knocked down in order for the government to be

As a consequence, polarized Congress will only fall under a gridlock that will obstruct the legislation process. However, I believe that there are ways in improving political polarization. Firstly, the journalistic coverage of public officials is in dire need of adjustments. Media should shift their focus and resources on the extreme members of Congress. This process will force those legislators to be more moderate in order to keep their positions. Lastly, people just need to vote. Even though “87 percent of registered voters voted in the 2012 presidential election, this only represents 42 percent of the total U.S population” (openstax, 249). This is an alarming number for a democratic country since all citizens are encouraged to participate under a democracy. If there are more people voting, officials are forced to appeal to a broader spectrum of

Thesis: The Electoral College is unfair and should be abolished because of the “winner takes all rule,” the chance that a president cannot have the support of the majority of the voters, and candidates would campaign equally in every state.

In recent years, congress has been incredibly adversarial to the president, providing that it is not controlled by members of his (the president) political party affiliation. The main source of this weakness is that congress and its members are defined by partisanship, they value tribalism, and are rewarded based on their loyalty to their party and antagonism to their opposition. This makes congress a breeding ground for viscous opposition where any room for compromise between parties is villainized, because of this the president can only govern efficiently when his party controls a significant percentage of both or either house. The major cause of this new political culture is highly contested, some say it is because political parties have come to gain too much power by way of their influence and ability to build campaign war chests. Others believe that political parties are too weak, citing that special interests and third party intervention has made members of either party less responsive to their leaders causing them to govern based on their fiscal supporters, which, would not allow compromise between two single groups. Regardless, it is very appropriate to cast the blame of a dysfunctional congress upon party politics. To illustrate this relationship between the executive and partisan congress we will look at the presidency of Barack Obama,

Winner-take-all systems tend to be significantly simpler and more stable. However, the representatives in this system tend to be more polarized than the average voter in the districts they represent. Additionally, winner-take-all systems tend to keep a very small number of parties in play, limiting the voters’ perceived reasonable choices. As pointed out earlier, the majority vote does not even need to be a majority of the total. A candidate only needs more votes than any of the other candidates to win, which may not be representative of the electorate. In a system with two major parties, one of the worst-case scenarios could be an election where the winner only has about 45 percent of the total votes. This would mean that around 55 percent of the district’s population is not being properly represented. Minor parties are often looked at as hopeless non-options, since they appear to be lacking the support necessary to win. Voters do not want to waste their votes, so they will try to make what they believe to be the best decision between two highly polarized parties. It is like trying to draw a rainbow in black and white—possible, difficult, yet not likely to produce an accurate depiction. While this makes the system significantly simpler for voters, it also makes the system more easily corruptible, and almost certain to produce a less accurate representation of public interests. Part of the appeal for the argument of keeping this system is that doing so

The Congress of the 1950s, known as the “textbook Congress”, is quite different than the Congress of the today. Our Author notes six legislative folkways that were noted by political scientist

‘THE FIRST PAST THE POST SYSTEM USED IN ELECTIONS TO THE WESTMINSTER PARLIAMENT SHOULD BE REPLACED WITH A MORE PROPORTIONAL SYSTEM. DISCUSS’