10 as groups of citizens “united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest.” According to Madison, these human passions divide the public into competing parties that are “much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good.” These parties often negatively impact the rights of other citizens as they pursue their own specialized goals, but it is “the nature of man” to create them. Thus, in order to protect the rights and voices of the people, a successful government must be committed to the regulation of these various factions. A pure (direct) democracy, argues Madison, cannot effectively do this because it offers every citizen a vote in serious public matters, and economic stratification alone prevents th... ... middle of paper ... ...esentatives – was sadly flawed. The congresspersons we have today more often act as a voice of their party (exactly what Madison wanted to avoid) than as a voice of their constituents. This creates instability, allows for a constant power struggle, and stalls progress.
Two ways to do this is by having a direct Democracy or by a republic. Some of the major problems with a direct democracy, however, are that men from specific factions may win elections and come into power by deceiving the public. Benefits of having a republic would be the limitation of faction powers and that the government will have more control of the “mob” or people. Some minor problems with republics are that factions may be limited which also contradicts its benefit, and that leaders may be corrupt. Controlling the effects of factions is possible to Madison.
Factions pose a threat to democracy and its associated ideals. This notion is proven through the overpowering of the minority by the majority, in which the opinions of certain groups are silenced, while others amplified. This majority and minority also forge animosity that not only creates competition, but sways the government away from its true purpose. Therefore, since the purpose of government is swayed, leadership becomes an issue. These issues are part of a cluster of other issues that prove factions detrimental to democracy and its principles.
It is clear that not everyone has the same opinions, and not everyone is going to have the same interest. Therefore sometimes people have to vote for something that they do not necessarily want. When it comes to the voting processes, the tyranny of the majority is at its largest. As if one can control the majority, meaning get them to vote for the candidates you want, then you can control everyone as those candidates can pass laws that benefit you.
Lobby Groups In this comparison between David B. Truman and V.O. Key, Jr.’s views on lobby groups they have different interpretations on role and interaction of these groups in government. In a democratic system there is bound to be resentment and desire for change because it is impossible to satisfy everybody. Truman and Key describe how those individuals try to be recognized while forming groups for “strength in numbers”. In the comparison of interest and pressure groups it is apparent that although they created resentment in the inner layers of government, they were necessary to the development and progress of the political system.
Madison begins perhaps the most famous of the Federalist papers by stating that one of the strongest arguments in favor of the Constitution is the fact that it establishes a government capable of controlling the violence and damage caused by factions. Madison defines that factions are groups of people who gather together to protect and promote their special economic interests and political opinions. Although these factions are at odds with each other, they frequently work against the public interests, and infringe upon the rights of others. Both supporters and opponents of the plan are concerned with the political instability produced by rival factions. The state governments have not succeeded in solving this problem; in fact the situation is so problematic that people are disillusioned with all politicians and blame government for their problems.
People in smaller state has more voting power, which leaves the people in the large states voiceless. One of the reason the Framers incorporated this system was because they didn 't fully trust regular people to make the decision. People have influence and power to decide the president but not directly. Our direct influence is electing the House of Representatives so that they will represent you. Although people are foolish and ignorant and tend to make a biased decision, this electoral college isn 't fully representing the majority of the people and being contrary with the 6 principles of Constitution.
The only disadvantage that may emerge from the random selection of jury is that the panel may be too democratic and in a diverse nation like the United Sates, too heterogeneous. Democracy essentially requires more homogeneity in its structure because too many differences create conflict. Conflicts in jury panels can be detrimental the entire court case, especially if a verdict cannot be reached.
It has become common for people to blame the polarization of politics on gerrymandering. According to a study “Does Gerrymandering Cause Polarization,” redistricting increasingly produces districts that are homogenous with respect to ideology; this is because ideologically homogenous districts make it more difficult for moderates to win, since moderates are divided so they no longer hold the majority in any given district even if they are the majority of the population. Due to redistricting (gerrymandering) polarization is possibly greater than it would be if the districting process were more politically neutral, but the fact that the U.S. Senate has experienced an increase in polarization at the same time the House has, suggests that gerrymandering plays a modest role at best in polarization (“McCarty, 3”). This leads us to our next theory that economic inequality is a possible cause for the increase in
Thus, this system discriminates people who live in states with high turnout. Rather than having statewide electoral vote distribution, vote distribution in congressional district could be little more effective in way to represent people’s will. Upon this defectiveness of Electoral system, current system is failure the way it mislead results and misrepresent population. This system is being used to choose our president for a long time and it is hard to find a replacement for it, but little effective change in the system is possible. If that is done, that change may bring huge breakthrough to the way we Americans see election.