The ways in which people vote have led to a situation where there are two political parties that dominate the elections. This leads to an inability of the voters to choose the candidates of their likings.
More than half of all citizens in the world are currently able to vote, however, many of them choose not to, leading to an increase of enforced mandatory voting in many countries. This essay will consider the role of compulsory voting and whether legally required voting reduces freedom. Compulsory voting is often supported due to the fact it considerably raises turnout, Birch 2009 found that mandatory attendance at the polls increased turnout by between 6 and 20 percent . Legally required voting is also considered to be an effective instrument to motivate citizens to express their voice in public life, thereby ensuring that their concerns will be heard, and potentially acted upon . However, opponents of compulsory voting argue that it violates freedom and reduces the legitimacy of the elected representatives . The first part of this essay will consider why compulsory voting was adopted, following this, I will consider the different types of freedom that may or may not be compromised with compulsory voting and how legally required voting could increase or decrease freedom.
In order to avoid losing voters to third parties, the two major parties are often forced to adopt positions championed by third parties. To fully comprehend why third parties exist, it is important to first be able to identify the numerous challenges they face in order to gain any sense of credibility.
“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.
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?
For hundreds of years, the two party system has dominated the American culture, but many people are confused by what a two party system actually means. Although a two party system is defined as two parties that are bigger than the rest, third parties have greatly impacted elections for over a hundred years. Minor parties still continuously voice their opinions in issues, causing other candidates of either major party to adopt their philosophies. Furthermore, some parties, such as the Reform have actually been successful in obtaining a position, such as governor. Finally, third party candidates have actually taken away votes from a number of nominees over the years.
It truly is a shame that a stigma is put upon anyone who “throws their vote away” by casting their ballot for a third party, for third parties offer an attractive alternative to the “cookie-cutter” positions of the Democratic and Republican parties. The sooner the American public realizes that voting for a third party or candidate not even in the election, the sooner the political climate of the United States becomes an overall better, more specialized, and tame
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
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
As citizens of the United State of America, one of our most important rights is that of which to vote. By voting, the general population has a say in who its leaders are. Votes for local, state, and even federal representatives directly reflect who the constituents want in office. However, America’s highest office is not elected by a vote of the people. Instead we use a confusing and outdated system called the Electoral College. Our president is not elected by the people, but by 538 electors who can legally vote for whomever they choose. Several times in our nations history an elector has voted against the people’s will. Three presidents have been elected into office by the electoral college and
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.
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.
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.
For the longest time jury duty and other similar institutions have been mandatory, however, voting is not required by the United States federal government. This raises another question. Is forcing people to vote constitutional at all? Could such a law exist in an individualistic and liberal country? The power to choose is what separates the United States from many other countries. The average citizen gets to decide how they live their lives. These values are found in the very principles created by the founding fathers. Voting is not something that should be forced. Also, there are times when voting isn’t as easy as one might think. There are many factors that could prevent a person from voting such as illness, their economic situation, or their level of education. All of these factors could lead to an absence of voting. What people and those who want to instate mandatory voting need to understand is that they have the power to decide who the next president will be. They shouldn't become upset when the person they favored the least becomes president. They could have done something about it but instead chose to do nothing.
As politics roar between foreign policy, presidential campaigning and for a while now the vacant seat from the late Anthony Scalia, we can see opinions from both parties for and against the filling of the seat for many reasons. As the US nation, wide spreads the presidential campaign, we see many viewpoints, drawing in from all over for the nominee pickings in November, with not a large choice in the presidential race we see much of the fighting rebelling against the vacant seat too. With politician's voice suggesting that the people have a choice of who fills the seat, while the president and congress have other thoughts, has created a large split between the houses, while the Supreme Court is equally split to figure out how to unequally figure