The Founding Fathers believed that political parties were dangerous and a threat to a popular republican government. Despite the foreboding of the Founders, parties formed and are still around to this day. I agree with the statement that “parties make the process work, clarify issues, and present clear alternatives. And when the parties are in a weakened state, it is bad for the country.” I think in their most basic form, parties do play a vital role in our government, but I understand why the Founders were hesitant about them.
In the 2016 election cycle, over 1.4 billion dollars was given to presidential candidates (Federal Election Commission 2016a). This is more than any other presidential election cycle in history (Price 2016). Another billion dollars was given to U.S. House of Representatives candidates, and about 600 million dollars was given to U.S. Senate candidates (Federal Election Commission 2016b). The majority of this money went to funding the candidates’ campaigns. This money controlled whose ads voter’s saw on television and which candidates were able to afford to travel the country campaigning for votes. In many cases, the candidate with the most money available won their election. Most campaigns are financed in large part by a small number
In 1792, the world’s oldest political party, the Democratic Party, was founded. During the presidency of President Andrew Jackson in 1830, the party adopted its name as the Democratic Party as it is known now. Prior to the renaming of the party, it was known as the Democratic-Republican Party founded by James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson in opposition of the Federalist Party. The Democratic Party’s purposed served to supported states’ rights and the strict interpretation of the Constitution (Mayne, 1). Correspondingly, providing financial support to family based agriculture was one of their main priorities (Mayne, 1). The Federalist Party, their opposition, consisted of wealthy elites that strived, and fought for one strong all ruling national government, rather than state governments. As the United States had just recently become independent, the Democratic-Republican Party was determined to prevent the United States from becoming a monarchy. Over the next century, the Democratic-Republican party began to split due to the lack of agreement on major ideas which led to the current two-party system. However, some ideologies remain the same such as moral stance, and socioeconomic status. Other ideologies like economic view and stance on government power have caused this split between the Democratic and Republican parties (Mayne, 22). It is imperative to remember that even though these two parties are completely different, they originated from the same party with one main goal; “To create a government that is run for and by its people” (Mayne, 23). I have still not developed a political identity, but over the past three years of my residence in the United States, I am more in favor of the Democratic Party and what they stand for.
The 1970s began a more active era of campaign finance reform. The passing of the Revenue Act of 1971 allows citizens to contribute one dollar to a presidential candidate’s campaign fund by checking a box on their federal income tax returns. Along with the Revenue Act of 1971, the Federal Election Campaign Act was also passed in 1971. This law institutes disclosure requirements for federal candidates, political parties, and political action committees of donations more than $100. This law also sets a spending limit of $50,000
Why Aren’t Third Party Candidates Successful? 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
They exchange favors for funds ‘Breaking Free with Fair Elections’ we learn about the myth of that “Fair Elections systems force taxpayers to support candidates they do not like” when the reality is that taxpayers taxpayers who contribute to public funding are not paying for a candidate, but rather a fair chance for every candidate.
The Fair Elections Now Act was introduced by Senator Durbin of Illinois in February 2014, and it would change the way Congressional candidates can finance their elections. The Act stipulates that qualified Congressional candidates would earn grants, matching funds, and television vouchers based on a minimum amount of small-dollar contributions from their local community (Durbin, 2015). This bill has still not been adopted, or accepted into law. This type of campaign finance reform is needed for Presidential elections as well.
The Effect of Third Party Candidates in Presidential Elections Although citizens of the United States have the opportunity to vote for many different offices at the national, state, and local levels, the election of the president of the United States every four years is the focal point of the
It’s hard to imagine a period in American political history that hasn’t been dominated by a duopoly of political parties. Even though resistance from the founding fathers on the issue of political parties is well documented, the two-party system we are well accustomed to developed shortly after the emergence of the United States as an independent nation. Whether it was the Federalist/Democratic-Republican system in the late 18th and early 19th centuries or the Democratic/Republican system we know today, two ideologically opposite parties have always maintained dominant control of the American political system. The existence of third parties and independent candidates, therefore, complicates the political system that we have used for
Political Parties: Do the benefits of political parties outweigh the drawbacks? Introduction A political party is defined as a group of people who come together to contest elections and hold power in the government. They agree on policies and programs for the society with a view to promote their supporters' interests. In democracies, political parties are elected by the electorate to run a government. The United States is a considered a two-party system, with its two most powerful parties being the Republican Party and the Democratic Party.
For many years since 1879 citizens of the United States wait in line to vote for the next great president who will help the country stand tall for another four years. But the mistake doesn’t lie in who you vote for, but what you are voting for and supporting. We sometimes ask ourselves, “what does each party do?” or “what are their beliefs for our country?”
John Adams, one of the founding fathers, wrote that “There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution” (“Quote by John Adams”). The Two-Party system has been around since the start of America. The Two-Party system is a system that has two parties that the government, or America in this case, has that lead the government or America. At the current time, the two parties are the Republican and Democrat parties. It was created with the idea that everyone can be represented within either of the parties. Even though it does create some representation of the people, the two-party system does not create an equal policy in society because it does not allow people to get far if they are not within either of the two parties, does not allow the idea of having more than two parties, and because it doesn't represent everyone.
Abstract This paper will talk about the presidential primaries in the United States of America. It will explain what a primary election is, and where it comes from historically, also how it fits into today’s society. Another topic it will cover is how the primary process has played out so far this year, how some of the contenders are currently faring in the race for presidency. It will also cover the strong suits of the primaries and some of the major flaws of the primaries. The last topic this paper will cover is whether or not the people of the United States should understand and care about the presidential Primaries.
To accommodate the financial difficulty of competing nominees the 1974 Election Expenses Act was implemented, and in 2004 Bill C-24. The 1974 Election Expenses Act introduced restrictions to the amount that candidates and parties could spend on elections, as well as gave tax deductions to sponsors, and partial reimbursement to parties and candidates wining more than 15 percent of the vote. Bill C-24 introduced restrictions once again on sponsorship spending placing boundaries on who can sponsor and caps on how much can be sponsored, while giving parties subsidies for each vote they received in the last election. By placing these restrictions and caps on spending, the competition in the financial field became less of an issue. The facts that these barriers have been acknowledged and attempts have been made remedy these burdens, not only benefited women’s likelihood to get nominated, but made competing playing field equal. Candidates who did not find finance as a burden were restricted to a cap, therefore made it more likely that all candidates would have around the same amount of money to spend on their promotion. Both men and women have to go through the same nomination process to become a candidate for elections; whether they choose to pursue the legislative route is based on personal choice, not political inequality.
With the upcoming presidential election, it has been interesting to learn about things as they are actually happening in our country today. Among the many issues that surround the race to the office, financing the presidential election seems to be a major topic that is always in the public eye. There are many different views on how the election should be financed but it is hard to tell how far government funding and donations can go before democracy is left behind.