More handpicked essays just for you.
Women's rights in the american revolution
Women's rights in the american revolution
Electoral Process in the United States
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Women's rights in the american revolution
America, at its founding, was radically democratic relative to the time period, but was still far from being a true democracy. In 1776, as the Declaration of Independence was signed, there were many restrictions on voting: only white, property owning, males had the right to vote. This leaves out all women, all Natives, all African Americans, and all men who were not rich; all of those groups made up a large percent of the population. The founding fathers of the United States also didn’t fully believe in the people’s ability to vote intelligently. John Adams wrote to his wife Abigail that women were too consumed in childcare and were too delicate to be trusted with the power of voting. He also said to James Sullivan, another politician, that if voting were to be more widespread, that it would be dangerous because it could, “confound and destroy all distinctions, prostrate all ranks…” (John Adams 1776). …show more content…
Instead, it guarantees an electoral college in Article II, Section 1 and in the 12th Amendment. These give more power to the electors than the ordinary citizens, and so even if the popular vote goes to one candidate, that doesn’t mean that that candidate will win, unless the electoral college also votes in favor of them. Still, even this limited form of voting and representation was extremely democratic for the time period. Britain, which was considered relatively democratic, had voting practices that excluded much of the population and, “tended to be uneven, corrupt, and far more restrictive than America’s” (Ed Crews 2007). Most other countries didn’t even have the right to vote at all. Although the United States’ personal form of democracy was flawed, it still existed in some form, unlike
Through these almost 2 and a half centuries since the beginning of the Electoral College there has been a large change in population. Since then, the U.S. has grown from a mere 4 million to a looming number of around 300 million people. It is because of this population increase that the Electoral College has become obsolete and is beginning to fail at its duties. Alexander Hamilton was a Federalist and a supporter of the Electoral College who was quoted as saying “It was also desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder/ promise an effectual security against this mischief” (Document #1). The College would have prevented tumult and disorder for
In fact, the Constitution contains provisions for direct and indirect election of the different parts of the legislature and the executive, based on overlapping but distinct electorates (Muller 1251). In addition, many people believe that, the Electoral College process of electing the president necessitates replacement with a direct popular vote to honor our democratic form of government in the United States. Moreover, in a democratic form of government, the authority rests with the people rather than in one or a few as in a totalitarian or authoritarian form of government. People believe a direct election supports the 14th Amendment principle of “one person, one vote” (Wagner 577). Therefore, the winner-take-all system inaccurately represents the will of the American citizens since not all candidates garner any electoral votes. On the other hand, a popular vote for the president could lead to many runoffs if neither candidate reaches a majority, creating a bigger opportunity for voter fraud and manipulation of the vote, which would not truly represent the will of the people, states, or country. The Electoral College sometimes fails to represent the national popular vote because states use the winner-take-all approach and not some proportional method for the representation of its voters. However, the Founding Fathers were not too keen on
This process of electing a president is unjust and is not based off of the people’s views. In Document D the chart provided illustrates how some of the electoral votes favor some states over others; for example the twelve states listed and the district of Columbia seem to have a bigger say in the presidential election process than the citizens of Illinois. This itself is unfair because Illinois deserves to have an accurate representation of their votes, the same as other states do. This shows that the Electoral College undercuts the principle of one person, one vote, and therefore violates political equality. “It is not a neutral counting device... it favors some citizens over others, depending solely upon the state in which voters cast their votes for president” (Document D). Political equality means all citizens are equal and it also allows citizens to partake in state affairs, including the right to vote and the right to challenge elections. However the Electoral College violates the principle of this for the fact that it weighs some citizens’ votes more heavily than others (video). Generally it makes no sense for the people to vote if they’re not even counted, and either way it violates their rights.
First of all I would like to bring to your attention that many votes don't even get counted if you call the United States a democracy. The way the whole Electoral College thing works is that each state is allowed a certain number of "electors" (the state's number of Representatives plus its Senators), who then vote for the president. The elector's vote based on the state's popular vote. After the state verifies the votes, the candidate that receives the most votes get all of that state's elector's votes. Because the state's constitution awards electoral votes that way, the innumerable individual votes become meaningless. Does that sound fair to you? It doesn't to me.
The Founders built certain protections for individual rights into this country's founding documents. The United States Constitution was one such document. In particular, such protections guard Americans who hold minority viewpoints from those who side with the majority. For example, the First Amendment protects the right of free speech to ensure that people who hold unpopular views have just as much freedom to express those views as do people who tend to agree with the majority. The United States Constitution, therefore, was intended to protect the individual rights of Americans from a tyrannical government and majority. However, today, the Electoral College does not represent the vibrant democracy into which the United States has grown.
It was John Adams who noted that "men in general, in every society, who are wholly destitute of property, are also little too acquainted with public affairs for a right judgment, and too dependent upon other men to have a will of their own."1 This shared attitude guided the Founding Fathers in their establishment of what has become America's modern day political system. When today's modern day student is asked just what sort of system that was, it seems the answer is always "democracy." In reality, the House of Representatives is the nearest idea in accordance with a system of democracy that this country would ever reach.2 Washington, Adams, and Jefferson were the wealth and success of their time, and coincidentally, it was these same men that fashioned a structure in which wealth and success were the ultimate judges of where power was to fall. The Founding Fathers did not seek democratic reform, but rather sought personal gain in the form of ultimate power.
In that case Bradford Plumer pointed out that each state would only have one vote. Wyoming, which only has 500,000 voters and California, which has 35 million voters each only have one vote to represent their citizens (Document F). The true voice of the people would not be heard. 500,000 voters could cancel out the voices of thirty five million voters. The electoral college is the reason many Americans think their voices are not heard. If the electoral college was abolished, then more voters would come out and presidents would be chosen by the true
With the Electoral College in place, the United States remains a true Representative Democracy. By having electors, who are nominated to cast their vote for the president, the nation distances itself from a Direct Democracy (Longley). While creating the nation, many people believe the founders were strictly concerned with power to the citizens. However, they truly did not give the people much “political credit” (Longley). In fact, the “framers expressly ejected” the idea of popular vote, and felt using state electors was the only fair method of electing the president (Gringer 2008). They also understood “it would be unlikely for a candidate to have a nationwide presence among the people” (Patel, 2012) Delegate Elbridge Gerry believed a plan using popular vote was “radically vicious” and feared that the “people are uninformed, and would be misled by a few designing men” (Gerry 1787). They framers understood many people do not have a lot of information on, or background in politi...
The united states is a democratic nation that chose to be governed by those who reside on its soil rather than royalty across the ocean in 1776. The framework for how the country would be ran was established in the constitution which was created without the use of democracy since none of the founders were elected. “The “committee of five” included Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson who were all firmly in the revolutionary camp. The committee also included Roger Sherman, who had some doubts but still backed the independence movement and Robert R. Livingston” (Braunwarth Chp2.4.2). These revolutionaries created the set of rules that they thought would lead to a democracy which poses the question; Can a country that states that
Throughout the course of history, mankind has been recorded to corrupt itself. Men have grown tired of simply surviving; they have had to take and conquer others. Absolute monarchies control wealth, land, and even lives of men. The conditions of the people were solely dependent on the conditions of the one who was in power in that particular place and time. History has proven that most men rule unwisely in their kingdoms. To avoid tyrannical rule, some make an attempt to set up a government in which the people ruled themselves. This form of government is called a democracy, or “rule of the people.” History has also revealed through the Greeks and the French Revolution, that a democracy that gives complete power to the people, “absolute democracy”, is nothing more than a short prelude to tyranny.
Citizens are a vital part in any government; some more than others. There is a great contrast between the roles citizens play in a democratic government rather than a government under absolute control. Emerging in the 16th century, absolute monarchy is a form of government in which the ruling monarch has absolute control without limitations. In this form of government, the monarch is the head of state and head of government with unrestricted political power. On the contrary, a democracy is a form of government in which citizens elect leaders to represent them through voting. On the surface, there is a lot of differences: having a say in government versus not having a say, all for one versus one for all, and fixed terms versus a lifetime of
"After 1815 Americans transformed the republic of the Founding Fathers into a democracy. State after state revoked property qualifications for voting and holding officethus transforming Jefferson's republic of property holders into Andrew Jackson's mass democracy. Democracy, however, was not for everyone. While states extended political rights to all white men, they often withdrew or limited such rights for blacks. As part of the same trend, the state of New Jersey took the vote away from propertied women, who formerly had possessed that right. Thus the democratization of citizenship applied exclusively to white men. In the mid19th century, these men went to the polls in record numbers. The election of 1828 attracted 1.2 million voters; that number jumped to 1.5 million in 1836 and to 2.4 million in 1840. Turnout of eligible voters by 1840 was well over 60 percenthigher than it had ever been, and much higher than it is now." (Remini, 1998)
The Electoral College plays a critical role in the election of the President of the United States of America. First introduced in 1787, the founding fathers implemented this system as a way to ensure a more efficient voting process (Soros). During this time the Electoral College did serve a noble purpose and in fact, was the most efficient way of voting in a time when mass transportation and technology did not exist. By participating in this process, townships were able to send a representative to cast a collective vote for that area. The modern Electoral College still operates in a similar fashion and yet, fails to serve a modern-day purpose. It challenges the democratic principles which the United States was founded on and may even operate illegally. Today, “forty-eight of the fifty states appoint (their) electors through a "winner take all" method of election” which is “not simply undemocratic, but potentially illegal...
Constitution. The delegates to the constitutional convention of 1781 were apprehensive that the popular election of the president would make the office of the presidency too powerful, as a result the delegates formulated an electoral voting system. The president was to be chosen by electors picked by states, with each state entitled to one elector for each of its members of Congress. This system was modified after the election of 1828. Andrew Jackson felt the will of the people under the then current structure of the electoral college was ignored, due to Jackson himself winning the popular vote and losing the electoral votes. Unable to persuade Congress that an amendment to the Constitution was necessary to do away with the Electoral College, he devised an alternative solution that Congress could agree with. The method which is still in effect today allows the candidate to win the electoral votes if the candidate receives the states popular vote (Patterson,
In the colonies, not everyone was allowed to vote this was certainly not democratic, but the criteria to be able to vote weren’t very extensive. The only real requirement was the owning of land. This today we might see as a hard thing to obtain. In those days land was very cheap. To make it even easier to obtain, laborers were paid well. This gave immigrants the ability to earn enough money to buy land in a short time, and farm it on their own. This also is the reason labor was in high demand, so many of the labors bought their own land and moved off to it. Labor was in short supply for this reason, and thus laborers were paid well. More than ninety percent of the people were farmers, most of who owned their own land. All these people would be able to vote.