Pros And Cons Of A Republic

According to Madison, a large republic is better suited to govern and preserve a country than a small republic. A large republic has many advantages over a small republic, specifically the unifying and centralized power that represents the people. However, the number of representatives must be large enough to limit power but small enough to encourage communication. With too many representatives, there would not be a close knit relationship that develops with small group and it would be difficult to be heard. Also, the larger the republic is, the bigger the pool of representatives to pick from is, whereas in small republics it may be hard to find suitable candidates. In a small republic it is easier for candidates to fool voters that they stand for something that they don’t. Obviously you will find more qualified candidates in the United States than in a smaller country like Mexico. These better candidates help lead the country better, leading to a stronger and more unified state.

Unfortunately, wrongful convictions of innocent people sometimes happen in the criminal justice system. According to a new report from the University of Michigan Law School 's National Registry of Exonerations, 2015 set a record for the number of wrongly convicted Americans who received justice; 149 people who were either declared innocent or cleared of their convictions or guilty pleas. Many of them had already served long prison terms for crimes they did not commit (Mencimer, 2016.)

America is an incredibly vast, diverse country, and has been this way for hundreds of years. The sheer size of America, even when it was only composed of thirteen states with a total population of nearly three million people (Brutus, essay 1, p. 64), concerned many Americans in the 1780s, due to this inquiry: was America simply too large for a republican style government to work? Many anti-federalists claimed that republics could only work on a small scale, while the federalists believed that having a large republic was the only way to go and would be beneficial to the public good. Before this time, history furnished no examples of a well-functioning republic as big as America, so the federalists and anti federalists were stepping into a completely new untouched territory.

There is a fundamental difference between a democracy and a republic as it concerned the political entitlement of the citizenry. The citizens of a republic do not participate directly with governmental affairs. The citizens of a republic can however have a say in who does participate. The Roman republic has two prefect systems to prevent dictatorship which didn’t work.

Who would think Oligarchy has so many advantages and benefits? As an oligarch, I would like to introduce the pros of Oligarchy to the citizens. The structure of Oligarchy makes the decision- making process fast and easy. Parliament and the constitution are absent in oligarchy. The decisions in oligarchy are made rapidly. The agreements get accepted quickly because it’s made by a handful number of people. Oligarchs are knowledgeable and intelligent individual and everyone is capable of making a wise decision. In Oligarchy, women get the opportunity to advance to the higher position in power. People don’t have to be wealthy to advance to a better position; they only have to have knowledge and creativity. A competent person, who serves

European immigrants were sometimes pushed out of their homelands, and other times, came in hope for a better life. The German immigrants, the largest group of European immigrants to come to Texas, came for affordable, fertile land, but they were also forced out of the overpopulated Germany that had become overrun by industry. The Irish came simply for economic opportunities, and because an Irishman by the name of William Kennedy wrote a book encouraging (Texas: The Rise, Progress, and Prospects of the Republic of Texas) immigration to the prosperous Texas. France was also encouraged by a piece of writing- The Republic of Texas’ Treaty with The Kingdom of France, signed in 1840. This treaty communicated the amity between the two countries,

Democracy is known as a system of government when all eligible people of a state can voice their own opinions as well as elect representatives. Democracy is not once mentioned in The Declaration of Independence. Pros of a democracy are, its by the people and for the people. Democracy is meant for everybody to be eligible to vote and they are able to vote. The people are also able to participate in what they think, feel , and voice about the political, social, and economic issues that are presented to them. It's in the people's best interest not just the governments. The goal is to find solutions with decision-makers best interest. The main goal is to is find solutions that are best for the people and regulate conflicts between states and government.  A democracy imposes equality, the people's votes carry the same weight, which makes all individuals to be heard and make them feel as if their opinion is important. Other than in elections of the state a citizens

Democracy in the United States: A comprehensive look at the Pros and Cons of a Federalist Society and Individual Freedoms.

Australia’s current political system is a Constitutional Monarchy. A constitutional monarchy requires that a hereditary monarch is appointed as the head of state. The monarch in a constitutional monarchy has got a largely a figurative and official role than a practical one. In this current system, the responsibility to pass legislation is tasked only to the democratically elected parliament. In Australia’s case, the hereditary monarch Queen Elizabeth II is the Queen of Australia and the Head of the Commonwealth, of which Australia is a part of. The position held by Her Majesty, cannot be contested by an election like the Prime Ministers, however it is a birth right of those in her lineage. Due to the exclusivity of the position as the hereditary

After the American Revolution, the US was in deep trouble. The Articles of Confederation had failed, and the nation needed a new form of government. The first option was using the Constitution. The Constitution provided a quick solution for the nation. It gave the national government the power to act in place of the people (i.e. the government would be representing the people). America would be a democracy. The people would be able to elect leaders into the government who are smart, strong, and will best represent what the people want. This democratic form of government has proven to work within individual states, so it will work to govern the nation as a whole. Also, the Constitution will not allow a monarch to form. Laws will consistently be enforced, which also means that everybody will be paying fair taxes. People's natural rights are provided and protected in the preamble of the Constitution, and the constitution will unite us as one large nation which will be stronger. Despite all of these strong aspects of the constitution, many people were concerned about having one government rule over so much land, and because of the crisis that the United States was in, the constitution had been rushed, and there were many little parts that had been overlooked when it was made. Another viewpoint said that a bill of rights had to be added to the constitution. This side believed that the constitution should be revised carefully and thoroughly before it is used to govern America.

Battle of Long Island- Lord North- sent General William Howe to NYC to take over the Hudson so that the southern

The majoritarian model is currently being used in Canadas political economy, however, Canada’s would be better off with a shift to the consensus model as it included all minority groups and represented the true meaning of democracy. The consensus model represented the people in a society by including minority groups, using a federal or decentralized government and a multi-party system. The consensus model ensured the inclusion of groups in plural societies, where this was absent under a majoritarian ruling. A majoritarian model of government only made decisions in the hands of a select few, whereas, in a consensus model the power was divided in a federal or decentralized government. Finally, a consensus model allowed for multiple parties to run for election under the multiparty system and voting was done under proportional representation. However, in a majoritarian government, there are two parties running for office which operated under a disproportional election.

Dear Director Clarke, in accordance with your assignment to investigate and analyze the the merits for authoritarian rule in the United States, I have found some compelling evidence and observations as to why the United States cannot head down the dark path towards democratic breakdown. Through my undercover work in each of the Autocracy Priority 6 countries, I have gained experience as to the benefits and obstructions that come with both forms of government. During my travels, I have absorbed that the four most important aspects when analyzing an authoritarian government are the citizens freedoms, the abuse of power, civil unrest, and the rights of the individual. On the same of level of importance is looking back into robust and rich history

America is synonymous with the word freedom, even being dubbed “the land of the free” by its own national anthem. But, what makes America so much more “free” than other countries? Some would argue that it’s America’s system of democracy, despite the fact that democratic governments are now the most common form of rule found in countries around the world. American democracy, although effective, is not the best democracy style for all nations; because, like many other countries, its government contains many flaws, including: its low voter turnout, two-party political parties creating division and deadlock in congress, and government positions of power being bankrolled and controlled by the rich.

A wrongful conviction is a terrible injustice that is magnified when an actual innocent person spends years, sometimes even decades in prison and/or death row. This has been recognized by the U.S Legal system for quite some time now and the rising number of exonerations are growing.