The Court 's View Of The Election Process

The outcome of the 2016 election left many Americans feeling confused, angry, cheated, and terrified of the future. Somehow, the sexist, racist, homophobic candidate Donald Trump had become the nation’s president, though Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton received the majority of popular vote. This raised many questions over the constitutionality of the Electoral College system, and whether it was unfair to the people of the United States. In the electoral system, created by the Founding Fathers due to their lack of trust in the people, the constituents of each state vote for their preferred candidate, and all of the state’s electoral votes go to the candidate with a majority. Clearly, the Electoral

In opposition to most states, Texas is one of a handful to do partisan elections to vote for judges. Contrasting viewpoints try to decide on whether the voting system should be partisan or nonpartisan bringing much debate in the election of the judicial candidates. Some argue the system should change because of possible bias both by the electorate and of the judge, others contend it is necessary to know what party the judges affiliate with in order to know what way they lean may lean in their final judgement. Many arguments bring to light the benefits and drawbacks of each system, critiquing the justness, dependability, and impartiality.

Of course, such influence establishes a tyranny of the rich that our forefathers clearly wanted to prevent. Senator Russ Feingold, a proponent of campaign finance reform, said, "The current campaign finance system is fueling the transformation of our representative democracy into a corporate democracy creating a political system that allots power in direct relation to the amount of money an individual or interest group can contribute" (Campaign Finance Reform). The horror of such a governmental system has fueled the cries for campaign finance reform.

Is it possible that the heart of the election process hurt the principles of democracy more than it helps? The Electoral College has existed since the time of the Founding Fathers leading many to believe it is a crucial aspect of the election process meant to protect the ideals of democracy. In truth, this system has largely hindered the possibility of a representative government. Thus, the Electoral College is archaic and anti-democratic, supporting unfair election practices such as underrepresentation and must be abolished.

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

America should abolish the electoral college voting system because it is an outdated and undemocratic system. This claim addresses an issue of policy because it calls for necessary action by the Supreme Court to abolish America’s current voting system. The claim urges America to take action and reevaluate if the electoral college is a voting system that should continue to be in use. An issue of substantiation is slightly underlying within this claim as well; if American citizens constantly feel as if their vote doesn’t matter, nor make a difference due to the way the electoral college works, a voter depression turnout may continue to increase, and an apathetic attitude will continue to emerge towards the elections.

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.

As a faithless elector, the big bad college acts independently by voting for a presidential contender other than the winner of states’ elections. Taking this argument seriously, suppose a voter holds the legal mandate to vote successfully for a preferred presidential candidate, an elector casting a ballot contrary to the mandate of the voter appears to act under the color of the state of law. In the end, the Electoral College remains a huge bad elector that deprives the citizens of their democratic right as entrenched in the constitution. As Tara asserts, since the endorsement of Electoral College, electors have turned into party mannequins, with their roles reduced to registering preference of state voting (n.p). As a point of departure, the Electoral College stages an unfaithful electoral predicament usually called a phantom over the origin of College. Reports indicate that since the inception of Electoral College, the statistical prospect that a disloyal voter could front an influential vote in the presidential polls remains

The Supreme Court of the United States is perhaps the most eminent judicial branch in the world and has served for a model for justice and democracy. However the Court is not exempted from scrutiny, and critics question the increasing politicized nature of the Court, from the appointment process to the nature of their decisions in landmark cases like; Dred Scott v. Sandford, Roe v. Wade to Bush v. Gore. Based on empirical evidence, this essay argues that the United States Supreme Court today is severely influenced by politics and not as much by law- at least in practice. Indeed, robust partisanship of the political interests of the President and Congress imposes on the constitutional function of the Court.

With the introduction of “soft” money in politics, elections no longer go to the best candidate, but simply to the richer one. Soft money is defined as unregulated money that is given to the political parties that ends up being used by candidates in an election. In last year’s elections, the Republican and Democratic parties raised more than one-half of a billion dollars in soft money. Current politicians are pushing the envelope farther than any previous administrations when it comes to finding loopholes in the legal system for campaign fundraising. The legal limit that any one person can contribute to a given candidate or campaign is one thousand dollars. There is, however, no limit on the amount of money one

The infrastructure of American government, as set forth by the Constitution, has been subject to multiple changes and adaptations over the course of history. These additions and changes, however, are uncommon and only occur when an unavoidable and potentially crippling problem arises. The process of amending the Constitution can be likened to the restoration process of a historical house; even though changes are made to allow for the building to be functional in current times, the main essence of the building is maintained – everything that does not absolutely need to be changed remains unchanged. Although amendments to the Constitution are difficult to accomplish, an issue has been festering under the surface of attention for centuries has bubbled to the surface within the last two decades. This issue is the apparent flaws of the Electoral College System. The government is capable of functioning with this outdated and flawed system; however, it would function more efficiently if the system was replaced with a system that allowed the president to be elected by a direct popular vote. The only way to accomplish this completely would be to pass an Amendment.

Since the 1970s and the Supreme Court’s decision in Buckley vs. Valeo (1976), outside campaign expenditures have been allowed during election periods. These expenditures, however, were restricted to certain subject areas, such as issue advocacy, and had to disclose contributors (Jacobson, 1985). Since the early 2000s, the disclosure of corporate and private entities has decreased significantly, which is a concern since corporations and other entities can now spend unlimited funds on electioneering communications that attempt to sway electoral outcomes (Youn, 2011; Dowling and Miller, 2014; Briffault, 2012). Moreover, general exposure to these political

The second reason is that it is complicated and dissuades people from voting. It may give citizens to feeling that their vote doesn't matter. And that it encourages

With substantial empirical data pointing towards the indisputable corruption of the judiciary by the electoral process, there has been a reasonable increment in the number of critics of judicial elections over the

The idea of money in politics has always been a polarizing issue. For over one hundred years the discussion of individuals and corporations financing campaigns has led to a debate of corruption versus free speech. Is money in politics a corrupting influence that always leads to quid pro quo? Or, is it an issue of allowing individuals to use their money as an extension of their freedom of speech? Recently, campaign finance reform has been a very dynamic issue. With the last major supreme court case Citizens United v. FEC, money in politics has taken a significant turn from the status quo. With only seven years after the Citizens United ruling we can already see the effects of less regulated free speech in politics.