The Pros And Cons Of Voting In Elections

The three democratic rights I have chosen are the right to initiative, referendum, and recall of elected officials. The use of ballot initiatives, referendums, and recall elections is growing rapidly. Initiatives permit voters to bypass their state legislatures so as to govern bodies enough marks on petitions to place proposed statuses and, in some states, constitutional amendments specifically on the ballot. Referendums require that certain categories of legislation, for instance, those expected to raise cash by issuing bonds, be put on the ballot for public approval; voters can also utilize referendums to cancel laws that are already passed by the state legislature. A recall election allows citizens vote on whether to remove officeholders

This system needs to be put to an end. The American people are well enough informed to elect their own president without the aide of an Electoral College. The electors in the Electoral College do not actually make decisions anyway. They are just figurative for they should vote along their state’s popular vote, even though most are not legally bound to do so. Even though the electors’ votes reflect that of their state’s popular vote, the views of the people are not always represented. If one candidate receives 50.1 percent of the popular vote, and the other candidate receives 49.9 percent, the candidate with only .2 percent more of the popular vote receives all of that states electoral votes. This system is also very unfair to the third party candidate. He/she has very little chance of receiving any electoral votes. In 1992, Ross Perot won 19 percent of the national

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

Third parties offer voters an alternative to the same two parties that run in the presidential election every four years, often with more concrete goals and views, yet there has never been successful third party candidate. For over one and a half centuries, the Republicans and Democrats have held a duopoly over the United States government (Diamond 2015). People have been growing more and more frustrated in their government and the two parties, so why haven’t third-party candidates gained any ground in the political sphere?

The way the American election system is setup; it is winner-takes-all and single-member districts. That means the candidate with the most votes is elected from a district. It’s quite rare to have a two-party system. Other countries have three or multiple party systems. The multiparty systems have a proportional representation. More than one individual is elected in their elections. Elections have historically always gone with either Republican or Democrat. There are other political parties, but they just don’t stand a chance. Republicans and Democrats have too much money and power, that the other parties cannot keep up with them. They don’t even have a fair shot. Their campaigns can’t compete.

Jere a logical approach demands a fundamental understanding of the representative democracy that we have. We have a two party democracy, period. Not because other parties do not exist, but because our infrastructure will not allow those parties to govern. Our constitutional framework makes the ascension of a third party essentially impossible, which is why Sanders wisely ran for president as a Dem. Respectfully, a vote for a third party will not change a constitutional structure that supports 2 party government; moreover, only a change in HOW candidates are elected and popular votes are apportioned (particularly in federal and state legislative bodies) will change that. With that understanding, we have an inexperienced candidate who is threatening

The Electoral College is effective in stopping majority rule. The minority (small states) still want representation, even though they do not have as many people living there. New York and California, who are overwhelmingly liberal, do not need to be the deciding factors for the election every single time. That being said, most states practice the “winner-take-all” rule, meaning that whichever candidate the majority of the state chooses, that’s who the electors cast their vote for. However, winner take all can be a bit unrepresentative of the state’s population as there have been cases where .

“It is a natural evolution of our mass consciousness to begin to see third parties as a viable option; it is reflected in the corrupt and broken two-party system.” Michelle Augello-Page, an author and writer, uses this quote to speak to the frustration Americans feel about the two-party political system. Since the 1850’s, the Democrats and Republicans have received the majority of the popular vote, while third party candidates struggle election after election (Schechter). The two major party candidates don’t always speak to the issues many Americans want to be addressed. Therefore, Americans must consider voting for third party candidates to ensure democracy works for everyone.

very much which causes the candidates not to pay attention to the States they don’t guess they have a chance of winning (Eric).It is true to some extent that every vote doesn't matter in the electoral college system. For example, a Democrat Californian who does not get the change to cast his vote for some reason should not be angry as his vote does not make much of a difference, but the same can’t be said about a voter in Florida or other swing state where every single vote can make a difference in the outcome of the presidential race. U.S. voter participation is quite low because most people think their votes don’t really matter, and it is argued among some, that removing the electoral college would increase voter participation(Amelia). In practice, the winner of the electoral college takes all of the state's electors which in turn decreases the importance of minor parties. However, the Electoral College is not the cause of the American two-party system, and it has had the disposition to increase the chances of third-party candidates in some situations. Some supporters of the Electoral College state that it can isolate the impact of election fraud,

A measurement that could favor and improve third party’s success rate, without changing the Constitution or abandoning the two-party system, would be fusion voting. Under this system, third parties could cross-endorse leading party candidates and have their votes accumulated. This system has been regulated in New York, where a Conservative Party, Liberal Party and many others are found. Oregon has also approved this system recently. The main advantage of fusion voting is that it would pressure leading party candidates to pursue the additional nomination of third parties and work to board their interests.

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.

Third parties fail to achieve electoral victories and representation in modern American politics have been because of the structure of the types of the elections, the ballot rules, and the debate rules. Even if the third parties have equal standards, views, resources, etc., lacking in popularity and significance within the government may increase the chance of not being able to represent in politics. “In order to appreciate the reasons for the Electoral College, it is essential to understand its historical context and the problem that the Founding Fathers were trying to solve.” (Kimberling) In the nation, the political parties brought up concerns and questioning of how electing a president with no such political parties would be possible

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

In recent years, society has noticed increasingly minute numbers of voters. Regardless of what is causing people to stay home, it is a big issue. Voting is a right, every citizen is entitled to having a voice in the government. We can choose to vote or we can choose to abstain. This is not an issue, until voting numbers are so low it is hard to even call elections. To help fix this, countries have implemented a system called "Compulsory Voting", or more blatantly put as "Mandatory Voting". This system would require all citizens (capable) to vote. On paper, this seems like a good idea. However, it is a removal of right. To have a right is to have an option. We as citizens have the right to almost anything we want. The Constitution gives us options. You wouldn't say we have the right to pay taxes. We are required to pay taxes. Obligations are not considered rights. Making the right to vote mandatory would be removing one keyword. RIGHT.

Voting is the chance to contribute to the political process, and the framework was made to work best when everybody partakes. Along these lines, utilizing your entitlement to vote is not only an expansion to the voter turnout insights distributed by each significant media site (which reliably demonstrate seniors as having the most astounding voter turnout - time for the young to lift it up). Your vote really matters and the country needs and needs to hear your feeling. We live in a vote based system (a term utilized delicately as a part of our general public). A democracy is a system of government in which the entirety of the population participates. So, participate all the time.