Should U.s. National Elections Be Restricted?

With these changes, we could fix these problems. If we put other branches in place so multiple groups have the same amount of power. If we change the voting to 58% instead of 100%. If we have it be mandatory that states give money to the government, and let the qualified people have the money they deserve, we could have a functioning

In recent discussion of Democrats and Republican parties, a controversial issue has been whether or not the U.S. should expand their options from more than a two party system. On the one hand, some argue that there should be more choices other than between the two Democrat Party and Republican Party. From this perspective, voters have more of a variety when they vote. On the other hand, some argue that the U.S. should remain as a two party system. In the words of Gary Johnson, one of this view’s main proponents, “The Republicans and Democrats have spent decades trading power back and forth between themselves, and in doing so, have managed to install a two-party duopoly that completely controls America’s political process.” According to this view, Democrats and Republicans are dictating other parties opportunities to get elected. In sum, then, the issue is whether there should be other options rather than a choice between the Democrat and the Republican Party. I agree with Gary Johnson’s view that the Democrat and Republican Parties are controlling America’s

In "American Democracy in Peril” Hudson 's central argument regarding chapter one Separation of Powers, is that our currant system of government is inefficient, unresponsive, and unaccountable. That separation of powers has divided and produced perpetually stalemated government, which is incapable of addressing important problems affecting a majority of the citizens. He views the need for separation of powers as antiquated, and a major obstacle to achieving democratic government in the twenty-first century. He suggests we adopt a Parliamentary system in order to solve our Pandora 's Box like government and get with the new program, so the majority can get their needs met.

“Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm.” With this statement, Madison aptly points out in Federalist 10 that United States citizens might not always elect the most qualified or well-intentioned political leaders (24). In our current presidential political climate, these words seem more pertinent than ever. There is no question that the powers of the presidency have increased since the founding of the United States, but what are the implications of this for American democracy? Increased presidential powers are taking power away from Congress, undermining the system of checks and balances, and ultimately hurting American democracy. Concentration of power in the executive branch circumvents democratic deliberation and limits

Ultimately, it appears that the framework of a separation of powers put into place within the constitution can be seen to result in a limited government, however it does encounter problems such as gridlock. Although, it seems apparent that the system does mostly create a spirit of bipartisanship with branches of government working cooperatively in order to achieve success, leading arguably to more consensus seeking. Moreover, it can be argued that the checks and balances ensure limited government and retain the liberty of citizens due to the provision of more levels of

The arguments made by Federalists and anti-Federalists regarding the office and powers of the presidency during the ratifying debates that followed the drafting of the Constitution in 1787 were persuasive, but distinctly at odds. Both sides, however, sought the same thing, how best to allocate power in a unified republic of states? From this question opposing views developed as to whether or not a President should even exist, and if so, what powers he should be granted. I will briefly examine the presidential powers that were primarily awarded under Article II of the new Constitution. I will then explore the opposing arguments that arose during the ratifying debates concerning those granted powers. I do so in the interest of offering a

In 1789, the U.S. did not have a two-party system. The two-party system is rooted in the beginnings of the nation itself. The Framers of the Constitution were opposed to political parties. The ratification of the Constitution saw the birth of America's first two parties: the federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton, and the Anti-Federalists, who followed Thomas Jefferson. The nation had only had George Washington, who was President without a party at that time. During George Washington’s two terms, a conflict developed between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, who were both Federalists men. Jefferson challenged Adams under the umbrella of the Democratic - Republican Party. In addition, the Democratic - Republican Party was the first real party that contained the formal beginnings of the present day two-party system. The word Democratic infers to “will of the people”, the word Republican infers to “rule of law” which is defense from possible oppression of the majority. In short, the American party system began as a two-party system. In this essay I will be discussing the why America needs a two-party system, why a multi-system may work for the nation and the conflicts, and how does this political system contributes to the nation and why a two-system is worth the struggle.

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

Conventional wisdom has assumed that the US government functions more effectively when one party controls both the presidency and the congress, yet divided governments are increasingly the norm. The author looks at this issue and concludes that control by one party has made little difference.

In order to correct “factious spirits that have tainted our public administrations”(Madison, 72), the government must control the effects of factions. He argues, “as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success... will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters (Madison, 77).” With this statement by creating an extended republic with more representatives, the tyranny of a majority could be avoided with the addition of more qualified, democratically-elected representatives. As a result, Madison felt that creating an extended republic with more representatives with more people voting would quell the effects of

The Electoral College, a hot topic these days, is subject to both criticism and defense. To understand why either side is valid we must look at its values and its weaknesses, its pros and cons. In defense of the Electoral College we can see that it in its roots the Electoral College was devised to dole out the power of selecting our executives geographically, and to give otherwise marginalized portions of the U.S. population a voice. Adversely the Electoral College can be seen as an obstruction to democracy and the will of the people. Whether or not the Electoral College serves the best interest of all the people in United States is up to debate. Whether or not the Electoral College serves the best interests of all the people in United States is up to debate, and this paper functions to expose what validities either argument may include.

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.

Partisan Politics in the newly formed United States of America was being established before the stipulated time governing this essay suggests. From as early as the Articles of Confederation and by the time of Ratification, Partisan politics was well on its way to play an integral role in the United States political life. It was tried to be avoided as dual-parties were thought to be a weakness in a Nation, however this was unavoidable.

The 2016 presidential election left many voters feeling bitter and hostile. President-elect Donald Trump is a minority president, meaning that he won the electoral vote yet lost the popular vote (“2016 Election Results”). There have only been four minority presidents preceding Trump: John Quincy Adams, Rutherford B. Hayes, Benjamin Harrison, and George W. Bush (Stepman). However, recently some voters and politicians began calling for eliminating the electoral college in favor of a popular vote. At first glance, this seems necessary; however, once one considers all factors, the system’s advantages unquestionably outweigh the disadvantages. In order to keep our nation running efficiently, the United States must keep the electoral process instituted by our Founding Fathers. The preeminent argument for its continuation is the efficiency it has provided for 200 years. The balance and stability it provides also justify its continuation.

The question posed by both Madison and the Framers in the 85 “Federalist Papers” and Dahl in his book How Democratic is the American Constitution? is how effective the Constitution is at promoting the ideals of a democracy. For Dahl, there are several issues surrounding the Constitution, from its drafting, to its ideology, to its relevance. By analyzing Dahl’s critiques of the Constitution in terms of the parallels that exist between factions and the two-party system, the issue of unequal representation, and the necessity for the Framers to compromise on their ideals to ratify the Constitution, Dahl defined a clear argument based in his general disapproval for the Constitution. However, by combining Dahl’s critiques with potential rebuttals from the opinions and perspectives of Madison and his fellow Federalists, it is evident that both Dahl and the Framers believed that if the constitution was completely successful, then the lives of the American people would be enhanced. While Dahl believed that the Constitution, ultimately, has not fully protected the rights of all persons, he, like the Framers, focused on the particulars of government that must be improved such that the American life is bettered.