Instant Exception Voting

Primary elections are elections held previous to a Presidential election to decide upon the presidential candidate from the two main parties. These are held in each state, each of which then goes on to sponsor the winning candidate of their primary at the national convention, where the party’s presidential candidate is announced. This method of choosing a candidate came about due to the McGovem/Fraser Commission of 1968 (where Mayor Daley refused McGovem the chance to run as he was too liberal). It replaced the old system of decisions being made in ‘smoke filled rooms’ where party bosses were all powerful and made the decision.

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.

In order to participate in major elections, third parties must first overcome a myriad of obstacles that have been put in place by both the founding fathers and politicians of our current two-party system. Rosenstone and his colleagues contend that the most important barrier in place to discourage the success of third parties is the plurality single-member districts that are the cornerstone of the American electoral process. Not only do single-member districts elect only one member to higher office, but they also allow such elections to occur without an electoral majority. If voters know that a third party is unlikely to receive a substantial amount of votes, they may believe a vote for the party would be a wasted vote. This requirement for a plurality of votes is especially detrimental for a third party presidential campaign, due to the fact that the Electoral College distributes electoral votes to the winner of each statewide vote (excluding Nebraska and Maine), and the only plausible way for a third party candidate to receive any electoral votes is to be extremely popular in a certain region of the United States. Unlike the two major

‘Breaking Free with Fair Elections’ we learn about the myth of that “Fair Elections systems force taxpayers to support candidates they do not like” when the reality is that taxpayers taxpayers who contribute to public funding are not paying for a candidate, but rather a fair chance for every candidate.

Winning the primary Ballot procedures Developing a personal following for the "party 's" nomination Incumbent advantage Sophomore surge Using the perqs of office Campaigning for / against Congress Impact of the way we elect individuals to Congress Legislators closely tied to local concerns Weak party leadership Primary versus general campaigns Kinds of elections and primaries: general versus primary elections Differences between primary and general campaigns What works in a general election may not work in a primary Different voters, workers, and media attention Must mobilize activists with money and motivation to win nomination Must play to the politics of activists Iowa caucuses Held in February of general election year

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

This paper will talk about the presidential primaries in the United States of America. It will explain what a primary election is, and where it comes from historically, also how it fits into today’s society. Another topic it will cover is how the primary process has played out so far this year, how some of the contenders are currently faring in the race for presidency. It will also cover the strong suits of the primaries and some of the major flaws of the primaries. The last topic this paper will cover is whether or not the people of the United States should understand and care about the presidential Primaries.

The United States is established by democracy and the will of the general population, yet in the 2000 and 2016 elections, the majority of citizens in the United States voted in favor of the losing candidate. These outcomes are on the grounds that the decision of the President in the United States hangs solely on the Electoral College. The Electoral College is obsolete and should be abrogated for different reasons. The original purposes behind embracing the Electoral College were tailored to the time of its creation and never again apply in a modern democracy. Additionally, the Electoral College prompts political imbalance as the instances of federalism, unexpected elections, and the winner-take-all broad ticket framework demonstrates. One must

Throughout the past presidential election, and many others, the ideal of electing the president by popular vote has been at an all-time high conversation topic compared to previous years. While many argue that the Electoral College defeats the purpose of voting, and diminishes the majority’s voice, this is certainly not the case. Without the Electoral College, elections would quickly become, and encourage, radical and corrupt ways in their voting systems, that could possibly result in a detrimental nationwide political crisis of voter fraud, and a rise to direct democracy.

In this argument, replacing the Electoral College with a popular vote is shown to provide a more unified and knowledgeable country. As shown through Spenser Mestel and Clifton B. Parker, a popular vote would empower all voters and allow minorities and majorities to hold equal power. Additionally, the Electoral College remains irrelevant because the basis for its creation was eliminated by the Anti-Slavery Amendments or the Thirteenth Amendment. Furthermore, the Electoral College restricts presidential candidates from utilizing a transregional approach. This not only divides the nation by state lines, but disenfranchises minorities and majorities alike. Although the Electoral College provides a sure way of electing a president, a single popular vote would serve the democratic country more effectively.

As usual in politics when a new policy is proposed, there are inevitably individuals who oppose the policy. Likewise, when publicly funded campaign contribution matching grants are suggested to repair the broken campaign finance system, certain people are against this idea as well. Opponents to this plan are rallying behind two major dilemmas. The first argument on the opposition side states that when candidates are elected, the rate of re-election is increased when the system is used. Since candidates using the matching grant system depend on the majority of citizens to raise the money to finance their campaigns, the lesser known candidates will only raise a fraction of what the central candidates can (Christenson 2). Despite this concept,

Despite the clear dislike for nonpartisan elections by parties Nebraska managed to pass a term limit in 2000 to offset unicameral elections. This only increased partisanship drastically due to parties playing a direct role in candidate recruitment and increasing party coalitions (p. 76). Parties were now more involved in recruiting candidates that had the same ideologies and interest as them. In essence, the concept of having unicameral

America is vastly known as a country boundlessly pursuing equality in all facets of life. In this seemingly endless quest for equal opportunity, there has been one lurking negation; our election system. The addition to equal representation in public funding and on the ballot will create variability and allow Americans to entrust their vote in a political format that more closely aligns with democratic philosophy. Therefore, a shift away from a bipartisan, a two party, dominated election system would not only be a healthy change for American electoral satisfaction, but for the future of third party politics. Unfortunately affluence and inherent wealth have played a large role in this divide between a true democratic election and our present biased, broken, and benyne system.

At the conclusion of President Barack Obama’s historical consecutive terms in office there is going to be a large number of candidates that are vying for the nominations of the respective parties. Due to the constitutional term limits imposed on the President, Obama is barred to seek re-election in 2016. While there are about 10 candidates running for the republicans, there are only two still in the running for the Democratic Party. The way candidates are recognized by their respective parties to become a candidate for the United States Presidency is first by receiving an invitation to compete in the primaries, then being included in the nationwide polls, as well as being on the ballot for at least 75% of all states. At the conclusion of the February 1st caucus there were 3 Democrats and 10 republicans who were still in the Presidential race, since then one Democratic candidate had dropped out.

The current winner-take-all system is serviceable, but it is prone to polar inversions due to its bipartisan nature. Neither party adequately represents the values of most Americans. Worse, is the fact that most of the votes that go toward an independent or third party candidate are essentially wasted, discouraging voters from selecting such candidates. It is a system which generally makes it difficult for smaller parties to gain influence, and which rarely provides accurate representation to the voters.