In a perfect world, “one-man, one vote” applies to both the House and Senate in congress. Unfortunately to the dismay of many uneducated Americans, this concept only truly applies in the United States House of Representatives. Due to Article V of the Constitution, each state will receive only two seats in the Senate, regardless of population. Meant to qualm the anxiety of smaller states during the 1789 Constitutional Convention, our founders decided to provide each state with equal representation. The House of Representatives on the other hand enjoy the pleasures of having the number of representatives based on the population of the state. These numbers are calculated by reviewing the census, which is completed by United States citizens every …show more content…
Gerrymandering by definition refers to “district line-drawing that purposefully maximizes seats for one party or voting bloc” (Davidson et al., 47). Two commons forms of gerrymandering are cracking and packing districts. Cracking refers to splitting a group of people up (often into two separate districts) to weaken party strength or group strength. Likewise, packing refers to placing a group of people into one district to strengthen the weight of a given groups (party/demographics) votes (Davidson et al., 47). Gerrymandering is an important concept to understand because it is often used by one party or another to dramatically affect the results of elections. Currently according to the authors of our text, the most common form is partisan gerrymandering. Here, congressional members of a state where one party controls uses that power to gerrymander and ensure safe seats for members of that same party. It’s extremely manipulative and squashes any chance of the minority party rising to power and becoming elected in that state. Even with laws put in place to punish those who engage in this practice, the act of gerrymandering continues. Gerrymandering is not overstated and needs addressed by all states regardless of party control. Such an act is prevalent in Ohio given that the GOP …show more content…
Looking at the history of this state, republicans have a lot more control than they did because of their control in the legislature and gubernatorial seat. Having that type of power makes it that much easier to draw the lines in any which way the Republican Party wants. I think it’s fair to say that this is how they were able to gain the percentage of seats they have now even though the voter opinion is rather tied/similar for both parties. As I previously mentioned I do think gerrymandering, especially this type of partisan gerrymandering is a complete abuse and manipulation of power for our elected officials to engage in. While I understand that they want to ensure safe districts for certain incumbents, our government is inherently full of opportunities for fresh candidates and fresh ideas. Gerrymandering ruins this in a way, as shown in the last few decades in
Despite the overwhelming critics, Texas remains one of several states that keep supporting the concept of partisan judicial elections, where voters cast a straight-ticket vote. In fact, electing judges by the public leads to a number of ethical problems which necessarily require compromise between judicial integrity and independence. Most of the allegations of wrong-doing have caused a number of professional and citizen groups to become disaffected with the existing system.
For weeks convention delegates have been argued over representation in congress, Large States want it based on population. Small states want each states to have the same number of votes. representative s shall be apportioned according to population. The number of shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one representatives. This piece of evidence relates to the argument because they said that big states has more power than small states that is why big states only need one representative.
Should British General Elections be conducted using a system of Proportional Representation? As the results came in for the 2010 election, it became pretty clear that the First Past The Post system had failed to give us a conclusive answer as to which party should be the next to form government and, as a result, we ended up with the first coalition government since the Second World War. The circumstances that lead to the formation of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition made people question whether it was time for Britain to reform its electoral system in time for the next election, and the term “proportional representation” became printed across the media as a way for Britain to gain a fairer voting system with fairer results. As events unfolded The Telegraph reported, just two days after the ballots had closed, that 48% of voters supported the implementation of a Proportional Representation system , which may not seem a great amount but is still a higher percentage than a first party has gained since Labour in 1966. It is also worth noting that even though the First Past the Post system allowed the Liberal Democrats to be part of government for the first time, the party remains a strong supporter of electoral reform to a system of Proportional Representation , as the Liberal Democrats have more to gain from the implementation of this system than any of the other other parties.
A Democratic Party long ruled by moderates and conservatives succeeded in stunting what seemed like the natural growth of a successful Republican Party until the 1990s. Since then, various forces have contributed to the growth of the Republicans, and in the end, to an altering of the core membership of each party. Most recently, the state has seen the development of a dominant Republican Party that doesn't yet hold quite the dominion the Democrats enjoyed through most of the twentieth century. The Republican Party has certainly benefited from the defection of former Democrats, the arrival of Republicans and independents from out of state, and organizational difficulties in the Democratic Party. Thus, Republican officials dominate state government, and Democrats find themselves reduced, for the present, to the status of an embattled minority party seeking to recreate themselves among their voting and financial constituencies. This is showing that the newfound Republican dominance can be the beginning of a new strong party system, or if we are in a state of transition in which the terms of political competition are still in change. If it is a new party system, I don’t think it will be very durable or last too long for that matter. Now, it seems that Republican dominance of state government will
Today, the citizens of the United States must push Congress to formulate an oversight measure to fix voter disenfranchisement. By itself, Supreme Court Ruling Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder does minimal damage to the voting process of the United States. The court ruled discriminatory practices of district actions half a century old unconstitutional, but left a responsibility for Congress to modernize the Voting Rights Act, to ensure that no district nor individual is discriminated against. Given the history of the United States’s voter suppression and the original need for the Voting Rights Act, a new, modern voter equality policy is of dire importance.
...n over bipartisan commission or even worse, by the state legislature. I think bipartisan commission could ultimately result in bipartisan gerrymandering. On the other hand, the party in control of the state legislature often draws district lines in favor of its own political interest. Independent commission guarantees fair non-political congressional districts plans which cannot be vetoed by the governor who also acts in favor of his political party’s interest. I believe democracy in a state is attainable when the people legitimately vote for the representatives they want but not vice versa.
The Electoral College allows a candidate to win the presidency without winning the majority of popular votes. Additionally, the unequal representation created by the number of electors each state has leads to a differential worth depending upon a voter’s state of residency. Moreover, the winner-take-all rule of the results in votes which are essentially rendered worthless if they are contrary the state majority. Finally, the system places much of the focus and power to effect elections in the hands of so called swing states that are not historically aligned with only one party. (Dahl, 80-83) These aspects of the U.S. political system are utterly counterintuitive and stand in stark contrast to many of the cardinal ideals of
Every ten years after a census, politicians redraw the district boundaries that determine the house and state legislature. The problem with this system is that the same politicians who redraw the district boundaries are the ones who are being elected by the
When gerrymandering occurs, a political party draws the boundaries of an electoral district in a way that helps their party win elections over the other parties. For example, if a Republican controls a state, and it appears like the party will lose a seat in the future, the Republicans will draw the district in a way to exclude as many Democratic voters as possible. Perhaps they will do this by removing a democratic stronghold from one district and adding it to another district that will either easily go Republican or will have a Democratic representative no matter what happens. Before 1964, the majority party could draw districts in any way they wanted to, and chaos ensued. Consequently, in 1964, the U.S Supreme Court legislated that the districts “had to contain equal population, and be as compact as possible” (“Gerrymandering”). Every ten years the U.S. issues a census to determine the population of each state. After this, each state receives their share of the 435 seats, and then the state gets to break the population into the corresponding number of districts. This whole process, known as reapportionment, takes weeks to determine, and in many cases, courts must determine the shape and area of each district. Even though the districts must contain equal population, gerry...
When the Framers were drafting the presidential selection procedure of the Constitution in 1787, they presented an artful compromise to the issue of direct election. With the new country spanning thousands of miles along the Atlantic coast and barely connected by transportation or communication, it was impractical if not impossible to distribute information widely enough for every citizen to make an informed choice (Kimberling). In a direct election, this lack of knowledge about candidates living in other states would inevitably result in citizens voting for the candidate they knew the most about. Because the larger states have considerable more voters, presidents would be elected not for their political beliefs, but for their place of residence. Given the inability to spread information extensively, the Framers compromised by adopting the idea of representation. The people up and down the country would vote for local delegates with whom they were familiar with. These electors would then elect a president “pre-eminent for ability and virtue” (Hamilton 333). By devising the Electoral College, the Framers ensured th...
The single-member district election system is the most common and best-known electoral system currently in use in America. It is used to elect the U.S. House Representatives, as well as many state and local legislatures. Under single member district systems, an area is divided into a number of geographically defined voting districts, each represented by a single elected official. Voters can only vote for their district’s representative, with the individual receiving the most votes winning election. This method of electing representatives is better than any alternative solution in various ways. Four compelling reasons to support the single-member district election system include the fact that single-member districts give each voter a single, easily identifiable district member; the way single-member district voting helps protect against overreaching party influence; that single-member districts ensure geographic representation; and finally, that single-member districts are the best way to maximize representatives’ accountability.
The electoral system in Canada has been utilized for over a century, and although it has various strengths which have helped preserve the current system, it also has glaringly obvious weaknesses. In recent years, citizens and experts alike have questioned whether Canada’s current electoral system, known as First Past the Post (FPTP) or plurality, is the most effective system. Although FPTP is a relatively simple and easy to understand electoral system, it has been criticized for not representing the popular vote and favouring regions which are supportive of a particular party. FPTP does have many strengths such as simplicity and easy formation of majority governments, however, its biggest drawback is that it does not proportionally represent
When America was first established, they had the highest voting turnouts ever in American history. Ever since, America’s voting turn-out has dropped (Fortin). The reason for the high turn outs were because American colonists wanted change from the British’s electoral system. As history writes, American colonist rebel and over time becomes one of the greatest countries ever. Today, Americans are one of the worst countries in vote to registration as they rank 120 in the world (Pintor). Over the summer, I got to learn more about Ohio’s electoral system and voting turn outs in a first hand experience. A decreasing number of voting to registration is not only a national problem, but a local issue as well and there are creative ideas in fixing these
The legislative branch of America helps create the laws or legislation. Ideally, it works to create a society that is safe for all members. The State of California like the federal government has a bicameral legislature, in other words, composed of two chambers. The upper chamber is called the senate, while the lower is called the assembly. A unique process for the state level is that it allows for the initiative. This process circumvents the state congress and can create laws without their aide. In the state of California, every ten years, following a US census, which collects demographic information, state legislators draw redistricting plans for itself, California seats in the US House of Representatives, and the State Board of Equalization. There have been attempts to create a “non-partisan” redistricting commission, but this has been turned down by voters numerous times. Proposition 14, 39, 118, and 119 were all turned down by voters to create a non-partisan districting commission. Every decade a large portion of the state congress’s energy is spent on redistricting. In fact, two of the last four censuses, Supreme Court has had to step in to break a deadlock. In 1970, Ronald Reagan, a Republican, vetoed all together the Democratic redistricting plan. The Supreme Court had to step in and created its own plans for California to follow. Then in 1981, Democrats proposed redistricting as well as congressional delegation redistricting. The Republicans stopped this by adding referendums to the state ballot. Because it was too close to elections though, Supreme Court overturned these referendums in 1982. In 1984, they officially passed the new redistricting plan which was very similar to the original plans.
There are three classes. of Senators, and a new class is elected every 2 years. The House of Representatives comprises 435 Representatives. The number representing each State is determined by population, but every State. is entitled to at least one representative.