More handpicked essays just for you.
Influence of pressure groups on politics
Influence of pressure groups on politics
Essay about electoral college
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Influence of pressure groups on politics
Pluralism is present through the variety of demographics in operation within states and societies as well as universal suffrage in democratic nations meaning that there is the opportunity to participate politically. However, this is undermined by the presence of spoils system, clientelism, pressure groups and fundraising organisations. Spoils systems are when power is allocated to officials due to their connections with elites rather than based purely on their own merits. This may be seen in the US; although technically ended by the Pendleton Act (1883), Presidents are more likely to choose friends or campaign colleagues due to trust having been built such as Sestak or Romanoff with Obama. This weakens pluralism as the President is becoming more dictatorial rather than voters choosing the officials, although it may be argued that this is in fact legitimate as the public votes in the president which gives them a mandate to govern accordingly. But with the presence of flawed electoral systems clearly shown by President Bush winning the minority of popular vote in the 2004 election due to the warped nature of the electoral college this argument that the people vote for the presidents and therefore his actions are representative is diminished.
The United States is a privileged country with freedoms and opportunities many countries strive to achieve. People come into the United States in hopes to obtain these rights and make a better life for themselves; they strive to achieve “The American Dream.” Citizens are given the chance to vote, speak their mind, and live according to their desires without prejudice. However, the same government that promises hope has flaws that frustrate the American people; the Electoral College is one topic of debate. Many feel this system is a safe way to regulate who leads the country, while others feel that issues should be left to popular vote.
Can morality be effectively described by a single moral duty? If we completely deconstruct morality itself are we left with a single intrinsic moral rule that is the basis of morality as a whole? Many ethical theories try to reduce morality to a single principle. Whether it be the respect of other 's autonomy, keeping promises, or producing the best possible outcome of any situation. Theories like these include Contractualism, Kantianism and Consequentialism among others. Rossian Pluralism and Virtue Ethics both take ideas from monistic moral theories such as these, while at the same time proposing an idea of morality that is radically different. They suggest we have multiple intrinsic
Since Electoral system can change outcome of the election, it often misrepresent the will of citizens. In electoral system, candidate with most popular votes in states wins electoral votes regardless of difference in popular votes. That means, people living in urban areas support one candidate, they could easily mislead the result of popular votes. Smaller area with more population often drag result on one side than larger part with less population. Either it is a presidential election of 1888 or 2000 election, candidates with higher electoral votes happen to win against people’s popular votes. Candidate of election of 1888, Benjamin Harrison won seat in white house even if he lost popular votes because he carried electoral votes on his side. Furthermore, margin between electoral votes was less than one percent, but still Harrison became president despite of 100,000 popular votes difference! Election of 2000 came up with same scenario. Gore won people’s support but lost electors’; therefore he had to accept G.W.Bush as President. After all this, what we can believe is indeed, the Electoral College is such an unreliable representative of the...
...e see that there are several factors which contribute to America’s pluralistic society. The influence, openness, and competition of interest groups put power in the hands of a diverse selection of people. The democratic elections and multi-party system allow people to choose from a number of candidates who they want to represent them as the elite. Lastly, America’s three branches and the bounds of the constitution help ensure that there is balance of power. Pluralism is a system which has worked for the country. Since its birth, the public has always been able to influence politics. Never has there been a threat of domestic tyranny. As long as the elite adhere to the constitution and work as activators for the people’s views rather than their own, America will be a free, democratic nation—a place where everyone coexists to share power, responsibility, and rewards.
The United States of America is often touted as the guiding beacon of democracy for the entirety of the modern world. In spite of this tremendous responsibility the political system of the United States retains some aspects which upon examination appear to be significantly undemocratic. Perhaps the most perplexing and oft misunderstood of these establishments is the process of electing the president and the institution known as the Electoral College. The puzzle of the Electoral College presents the American people with a unique conundrum as the mark of any true democracy is the citizens’ ability to elect their own ruling officials. Unfortunately, the Electoral College system dilutes this essential capacity by introducing an election by
But was this blatant act of dynastic succession an unfortunate chapter in democracy? Adam Bellow, author of In Praise of Nepotism: A Natural History, would venture to say no and that in fact the November 2000 presidential election was evidence of a growing cultural and societal acceptance of familial enterprise and kinship. Nepotism, Bellow argues, is inevitable, natural, and healthy -- even in a democracy (25).
Victoria, I like how you stated you came into the class with an open mind. I also came into the class with an open mind and it really helped me understand the theories and how they could apply in our everyday lives. On the last question you answered about the pluralistic approach you stated that it is the answer that we have all been looking for and I couldn’t agree more. It seems that every theory has its pros but to help us in the long run we can’t just live by one theory. Moral pluralism “allows each theory to apply to the kind of moral phenomenon it suits best; it also avoids the unfair demand that any one account can cover all the moral ground (285). “ All theories can contribute to our decision-making. “Each theory emphasizes different
Democracy in the United States became prominent in the early to mid 19th century. Andrew Jackson, the 7th president of the United States, was inaugurated in 1829 and was best known as the person who mainstreamed democracy in America. Because he came from a humble background, he was the “genuine common man.” (Foner, pg. 303) He claimed he recognized the needs of the people and spoke on behalf of the majority [farmers, laborers]. However, critics of Jackson and democracy called him “King Andrew I” because of his apparent abuse of presidential power [vetoing]. These critics believed he favored the majority so much that it violated the U.S. constitution, and they stated he was straying too far away from the plan originally set for the United States. Because of the extreme shift of power to the majority, the limiting of rights of the few [merchants, industrialists] and the abuse of power under Jackson’s democracy, the foundational documents set in the constitution was violated, and the work of the preceding presidents were all but lost.
The United States of America is a republic, or representative democracy. Democracy, a word that comes to us from Greek, literally means the people rule (Romance, July 8). This broad definition leaves unanswered a few important details such as who are the people, how shall they rule, and what should they rule on (July 8). Defining the answers to those questions means defining a model for a democratic system. William E. Hudson defines four such models in his book American Democracy in Peril: the Protective, Developmental, Pluralist, and Participatory models of democracy (Hudson, 8-19). Of these models, perhaps Participatory comes closest to an ideal, pure democracy of rule by the people (16-19). In practice, however, establishing a stable ideal democracy is not entirely feasible. In a country the size of the United States, it quickly becomes unwieldy if not impossible to have direct rule by the people. To overcome this, the compromise of the representative system allows the people to choose who will rule on a regular basis. The political culture that defines American politics shows that despite this compromise, America is still very much a democratic society.
Happening on multiple occasions, the Electoral College has elected a President that did not win the popular vote. Called a “faithless electors”, this happens when an elector doesn’t follow the guidelines provided by the general election (Williams 2). The election of a “minority” President has created controversy whether the Electoral College should be abolished or not. People in favor of the Electoral College state that it requires popular support throughout the states to be elected President, and it protects the smaller states’ interests for the candidates. Those in favor also say that the Electoral College supports and stabilizes a two-party system and maintains the United States’ system of representation (Williams 3). While some people are in favor of the Electoral College, there are people that protest against it. These people say that the Electoral College can lessen the voter turnout, put votes with “faithless electors”, and the Electoral College might not show what the citizens want based on popular vote. Carolyn Jefferson-Jenkins, from League of Women Voters, is a protester of the Electoral College and said, “The Electoral College, a curious vestige of the eighteenth century, violates the principle of one person, one vote. The time has come to abolish it.” Jefferson-Jenkins goes on to state that the Electoral College is becoming outdated with the technology advancements of
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...
In Federalist No. 10, James Madison stresses that “measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.” Madison philosophized that a large republic, composed of numerous factions capable of competing with each other and the majority must exist in order to avoid tyranny of majority rule.# When Federalist No. 10 was published, the concept of pluralism was not widely used. However, the political theory that is the foundation for United States government was the influential force behind pluralism and its doctrines.
...lso speaks of the instances where the system had failed to accurately represent the national popular will’s vote and goes into depth about each instance. Obviously this article is against the Electoral College and it gives many points in support of the anti-electoral college supporters. In conclusion of his article he does mention that this voting system has worked well throughout the years, but believes that it is not necessary because of the reasons that the Electoral College was established is no longer an issue in today’s world. So therefore the voting system is outdated. My use for this article in my research regarding the Electoral College debate will strengthen my argument against the Electoral College. It will be useful because of the in-depth explanations of each instance in which the current voting system failed to represent the national popular will.
Social Democracy Pluralism By definition - A system of government that allows and encourages public participation, particularly through the activities of pressure groups seeking to influence the government. Traditional socialism has always been associated with an analysis of society that class differences are crucial, in particular the middle classes - those who have gained to the working classes expense - summarised, the two classes interests are in conflict. Social democrats believe society is far more complex than a class interest struggle, and this concept becomes outdated in a pluralist society - a community of individuals and varied interests. Traditional Socialism is arguably intolerant in its outlook with 1) A reluctance to accept that there may be other ways to achieve socialist goals (equality of opportunity, welfare provision etc) 2) Assumptions that all people will benefit from these goals.
A multi-ethnic society is a society which includes people from a variety of different races, religions, cultures, backgrounds etc. Multi-ethnic societies can have many negative and positive effects which I am going to explain in the following paragraphs.