Government and Politics - Presidential Election - Essay Example

Among 'aristocratic' nations all the members of the society are related with and reliant upon each other; the graduated level of different position acts as a tie which keeps everyone in his proper place and the whole body in subordination. Something of the same kind always takes place in the political congresses of these States. Parties naturally range themselves under certain 'cream of the crop', whom they abide by a sort of intuition, which is only the effect of habits contracted elsewhere. They carry the manners of general society into the lesser assemblage. American political leaders say the way they choose their politicians is one of the most free and democratic course in the entire world. But to foreigners it can also be one of the most bizarre. The election race in some countries including United Kingdom takes just a few weeks, but US presidential runners undertake a political epic, negotiating 'primaries', 'party conventions' and an 'Electoral College' system down the way (Bennett 2005, pg 270). In the UK, the party chooses a candidate, but in the US, however, supporters who declare vote for one party or another get to pick from the list of candidates (Bennett 2005, pg. 270). The candidates, campaigning in opposition to other candidates of the same party, must win enough 'state primaries' to give them the most delegates at the party convention in the summer (pg. 271). Some states, such as Iowa, use a 'caucus system' rather than primaries to select. Whereas in primaries people only indicate at the vote box which candidate they support, caucuses (the word derives from an Indian word for a gathering) are more intricate and work by selecting delegates through several stages. That intricacy was borne out of the American's supposed"forerunners'" panic of autocracy and the longing to defend the authority of individual States. There are, in general, two sorts of primaries - open and closed. A voter can participate either in one party or the other's primary, but not in both. Independent applicants can also participate in open primaries. However, in a closed primary, voters can cast their vote only in that party they have listed with. However, each State's 'electoral system' is dissimilar, with some using 'caucuses', where parties hold neighboring members conferences to choose their nominee (Bennett 2005, pg. 272). As The 'political convention' is exceptionally an American belief, one that is cracked down on the political parties that have organized Americans' preferences in ruling for almost 175 years. The interesting thing is that political conventions are not stated in its Constitution. Certainly, the forerunners of America viewed political parties with suspect or outright opposition. Yet now, they can barely imagine a government without political parties, and the parties' conventions are huge, broadcasted media events (Bennett 2005, pg. 273). Each State reaches the hall with its own delegates and placards declaring which presidential applicant it supports. Regardless of the 'lack of enthusiasm' from the founding fathers of the U.S. to accept political parties, two had rebounded in some decades of the country's beginning. These first parties were defined with a loose knot, and it's tricky to find exactly when they started. By the late nineties, however, these parties were becoming more planned and playing a larger role in American political affairs. Nowadays, presidential primaries have made the conventions pointless for practical reasons. They exist mainly as a 'selling tool' and a political 'pep rally', where each party pretends a well-choreographed show. The rival candidates square up for the presidential movement proper. Policies are polished, often to consider the supporters of the applicants who have been purged. This phase of the campaign is shorter than the plod through the State primaries. There are heavy expenses spent on TV hypes on a national scale, and there are routinely debates on TV between the applicants for Presidential elections. In the closing weeks, the candidates in general concentrate their interest on the big so-called "swing states" as they encounter it out for the serious Electoral College votes. In the U.S., the president isn't elected openly by the supporters or voters. Each State has several Electoral College associates who in fact choose the president in support of the people (Bennett 2005, pg. 273). The number of associates reflects the State's image in Congress. Either contender wins the majority of votes in each State win the entire of that State's Electoral College associates. The other contenders get nothing - not including in Nebraska and Maine, which award extra votes to applicants with notable shares of the popular vote. Once a contender gets a popular of members from across the States, the election is done in the public's mind. But actually the Electoral College members do officially get together and elect the president. Electoral College members aren't officially bound to take part in an election for the winning contender or in keeping with their party commitment, but cases when they have not are exceptional. State end results are calculated prior to the full Congress in January. As Bennett describes, "for presidential elections, campaigning - particularly for the challenging party (the Democrats in 2004) - begins 18 months to 2 years before polling day. The first caucuses and primaries start in January of the election year - still a good 9 months or more before the general election", however, he added "in the UK, the government takes the initiative in trying to ensure that everyone eligible to vote is registered to vote by sending a voter registration form to every household each year. A prepaid envelope is enclosed for its return once completed". Electoral systems matter. But they do not matter in isolation. Results of all the previous elections reflects intricate interactions between ballot vote systems and institutions, group interests and coalitional performance of the people entitled to vote, and the concerns and election policies of political parties and contenders. Additionally, efforts made by political scientists to classify established patterns of cause, effect, and results inoculate methodology into the untidy heap of pertinent issues. Since Electoral College representation is rooted in congressional representation, States with larger people get more Electoral College votes. The joint representatives of each State acquire one vote and a simple bulk of States is necessary to win. This has only occurred two times. Presidents Thomas Jefferson in 1801 and John Quincy Adams in 1825 were chosen by the House of Representatives (Bennett 2005, pg. 274). While the State members of the electorate are "pledged" to support the candidate of the party that preferred them, not anything in the Constitution necessitates them to do so. In rare cases, an elector will desert and not elect his or her party's runner. Such "faithless" votes hardly ever change the result of the election and rules of some states ban electors from casting them (pg. 271). Why there is so much delay stuck between the General Elections and the Electoral College meetings Back in the 1800s, it just took that long to calculate the 'popular votes' and for the entire voters to travel to the State Capitals. In 2008, the time is more expected to be used for resolving any protests owing to election code infringements and for vote details (William 2007, pg 153-159). Critics like William Storey (2007) of the Electoral College system, of which there are several, indicate that the system lets the possibility of a contender actually losing the national popular vote, but being chosen president by the electoral vote (pg. 153). Can that happen Yes, and it has. A cursory look at the "Electoral Votes From Each State" and a little mathematics will inform that the Electoral College system makes it likely for a contender to actually drop the national popular vote, but be chosen head by the Electoral College1. Has a presidential applicant ever missed the national popular vote but been nominated as a president in the Electoral College Yes, it happened four times2 before: In 1876, there were of only 369 votes on hand with 185 required to win. Republican Rutherford B. Hayes, with 4,036,298 popular votes got 185 electoral votes. His main rival, Democrat Samuel J. Tilden, got the popular vote with 4,300,590 votes, but won only 184 electoral votes. Hayes was an elected president. Secondly, in 1888, there were of 401 electoral votes on hand with 201 required to come first. Republican Benjamin Harrison, with 5,439,853 popular votes got 233 electoral votes. His main challenger, Democrat Grover Cleveland, got the popular vote with 5,540,309 votes, but won only 168 electoral votes. Harrison was elected as a president. Thirdly in 2000 there were 538 electoral votes on hand with 270 required to come first. Republican George W. Bush, with 50,456,002 popular votes got 271 electoral votes. His Democratic adversary, Al Gore, got the popular vote with 50,999,897 votes, but won only 266 electoral votes. Bush was elected president. And finally in 2004, 122 million people voted; a dramatic increase in the overall turn-out - as percentage increase from 51 per cent of voting-age population in 2000 to 61 per cent in 2004 (William 2007, pg 159). As shown by the results above, the Electoral College makes the leeway that the US president will be elected not in favor of the popular will. This basic abuse to democratic system has not shockingly led to many calls for change the Electoral College since its start (Bennett 2005, pg. 272). Some reform applications have managed amending the Constitution. In some educated guesses given by Bennett (2005), over 700 amendments regarding the Electoral College have been brought in Congress in last 200 years, certainly the most of any issue. What roughly all these applications have in common is that they only undertake part of the issue, thus guaranteeing that the resolutions will half-done at best. In 24 states, electors aren't bound by law to take part in the Electoral College for the applicant for whom they were chosen. Even in those 26 states that bind their members of the electorate to the applicant for which they were chosen, the constitutionality of implementing those laws is blurred. Although it looks like absolutely insane and subjective to most US citizens, the free will of the people perhaps gone completely overlooked by the members of the Electoral College. The faithless elector problem is not a product of the imagination of those who would reform or abolish the Electoral College. In 2000, one of Al Gore's electors from the District of Columbia abstained to protest D.C.'s lack of representation in Congress. In 2004, one of George Bush's electors from West Virginia has announced his intention not to vote for Bush (William 2007, pg. 126-130). In reply to this issue, people have proposed a constitutional amendment binding electors to the candidates whom they were elected to be (William 2007, pg. 126). While this may solve the unfaithful electoral issue, it does naught to resolve the bigger problem of the odds of minority rule (pg. 130). The most excellent way to make sure that administration reflects the determination of the people is to make the electorate accountable for who gets designated to office. The winner-gets-all System puts off selection process in strong states and the Colorado Amendment 36 interim. All the states except Maine and Nebraska employ the winner-gets-all process of assigning their electoral votes, whereby the victor of the state's popular vote, irrespective of margin of success, gets all the state's electoral votes, even if the successful candidate doesn't succeed a best part of the votes (Bennett 2005, pg. 173). As a practical issue, this dampens citizens in those States that are a traditionally strong of one of the parties from leaving to the opinion polls. Because Democrats in New York and Republicans in Texas have such huge benefit in figures, it is extremely improbable that a Republican presidential runner will be successful in New York or that a Democratic presidential runner will be successful in Texas (Bennett 2005, pg 173). Owing to this unlikelihood, voters have a tendency to remain at home on elections day because they believe their 'favored candidate' is going to be successful or lose despite their vote. Although Colorado isn't a 'strong' state in 2004, an amendment on its vote this election is one likely explanation to this predicament. Amendment 36 would assign Colorado's 9 electoral votes to the applicants roughly in share to the proportion of the popular vote which the contenders be successful. If the amendment passes, Coloradans of both parties will be encouraged to take part in presidential elections even if the applicant of one party is notably in front. Though, even if the entire states were to take on comparative representation in the Electoral College, it would still be likely for an applicant to get elected president with not many of the popular vote. The best way is to encourage citizens that their participation in an election counts. Abolishing the Electoral College for direct popular votes would guarantee that every American's vote counts uniformly and evenly towards the election of the leader. References: Bennett, Anthony J., 2005, A2 US and Comparative Government Politics, Paperback ISBN: 9781844894178, pg. 270-273 William, Storey, 2007, US Government and Politics, Edinburgh University Press, ISBN-10: 0748624295, pg. 126-130 Read More