Straight-ticket voting (likewise called straight-party voting) enables voters to pick a gathering's whole slate of hopefuls with only a solitary poll stamp. Voters make one punch or stamp on the tally keeping in mind the end goal to vote in favor of each competitor of that gathering for every divided office on the vote. In America “A total of nine states allow or offer straight-ticket voting (STV). With a few exceptions, the straight-ticket option is available in all general elections, and applies to all partisan offices on the ticket, including federal, state and local races.” (ncsl) “Straight-ticket voting (STV), also known as straight-party voting, is the practice of voting for all the nominees for political office from a particular party, …show more content…
At least people will have a knowledge about the candidate and they can decide who is right candidate for them. If they elect the unqualified people, the price of the ramification is to pay by the same people who voted for that candidate. Just for saving a time if people are preferring straight ticket voting and then I think it is not a wise idea to elect right and suitable candidate. If there is no STV the lines will become incredibly long, as voters will take more time in choosing all their preferred candidates, and there need to be an extra voting machine to count a ballot, but still for long run people will get the wise candidate, so they can avoid the consequences. “One obvious problem with straight-ticket voting is that the parties don’t really vet their candidates. The people at the tops of the tickets have been through the wringer; you might not like them or support them, but you know most everything about them. That’s not the case down the ballot. Dallas County elected a Democrat to its top job — county judge — a few years ago and nobody in the party initially knew who he was. He was, among other things, a beneficiary of the straight ticket.” (texastribune) There are several pros and cons out there. The pros are here to convince those people who are lazy, least informed voters. They do not care about the candidate, if that candidate is the suitable one or like Steve
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.
"Winner-take-all” is a term used to describe single member district and at large election systems that award seats to the highest vote getters without ensuring fair representation for minority groups. In the United States, these are typically single-member district schemes or at-large, block-voting systems. Under winner-take-all rules, a slim majority of voters can control 100% of seats, leaving everyone else effectively without representation.
The Electoral College is an outdated and unrealistic arrangement that caters to eighteenth century federalist America in a way that is detrimental to modern democracy. The electoral college gives too much power to the government, overlooks equal representation, and creates loopholes that do not serve to help America thrive.
The candidates will have a better chance of getting elected.
In the Electoral College system, every state has one electoral vote for each congressman and senator. Congressman is allotted by population and every state has two senators, so Rhode Island, which has basically nobody in it, has three electoral votes. California, with 53 representatives and two senators, has 55 electoral votes. The states choose electors and the electors meet in what is called the Electoral College to pick a president. In practice, nearly every state has passed a law that the electors will all vote for the popular vote winner in their state, but as the Supreme Court said in Bush v. Gore, the people of the United States do not have a constitutional right to pick the president. A state could, if it felt like it, select the electors
Voters in states like Idaho wouldn’t benefit from this. There are once other problems when comes to gerrymandering. While candidate of the majority party has the advantage, it doesn’t allow for a third party candidate to have as much as a chance. Voters of smaller party will be spilt up between the districts and it becomes difficult for a candidate to elected they favor thus making it hard to a third party to become represented in
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.
...lity of the votes (Shugart 632). Each states would be important under such a system, as candidates would be forced to address as many voters as possible, not just "voting blocs" that could swing a plurality in the state and, therefore, the entire state. More people would participate in elections because they would know that every vote did indeed count.
A platform of “A Vote For Every American” should pass the lips of every elected official until this problem is rectified. Americans must work together to solve this problem, allowing a new and better system to give way to a fair and just system of electing the next United States’ President. Bibliography Beck, Paul Allen, and Hershey, Marjorie Randon. Party Politics in America? 9th Ed. -.
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
A divided government is when one party controls the White House and the other controls either or both parts of Congress. This type of government has not always existed in the United States and until recently, it has become the norm in the way that our government functions. In my opinion, I would say that a divided government is a healthy form of checks and balances in the American system. There are of course some pros and cons of a divided government but just like that old saying goes, “If the opposite of pro is con, then the opposite of progress must be Congress.”
John Adams once said "You will never know how much it cost the present generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it." For many generations, our ancestors have fought for the right to vote. It started with the Civil Rights Act in 1964 which made it mandatory that white schools integrate black children into their institutions. The outcome of the 1964 election was a landslide, favoring the democrats, which broached the issue of civil rights legislation. In 1964 “only 7% of eligible black citizens in Mississippi were registered; in Alabama the figure was 20% (Kernell, et. al 2014, 162). The low voter turnout rate was because people of color were required to take a literacy test. This all changed when President Johnson
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
...id of the two party system is that the American people would be less likely to vote because there would be a lot more people on the ballot and it wouldn’t be as easy as it is now, where most people just go in and look for the little ‘R’ or the little ‘D’. However as the gallup poll has shown the people seem to want more people on the ballot since they want to see more independents in the running.
As the United States of America gets older, so does the presidential election voting system. The argument to change this method of voting has been becoming more and more popular as the years go on. It has been said that the Framers of the Constitution came up with this method because of the bad transportation, communication, and they feared the public’s intelligence was not suitable for choosing the President of the United States. Others say that the Framers made this method because they feared that the public did not receive sufficient information about candidates outside of their state to make such a decision based on direct popular vote. My research on this controversial issue of politics will look into the factors into why the Electoral College exists and if it is possibly outdated for today’s society. It will look into the pros and cons of this voting system, and it will explore the alternative methods of voting such as the Direct Popular vote. Many scholarly authors have gathered research to prove that this voting system is outdated and it does not accurately represent the national popular will. Many U.S. citizens value their vote because they only get one to cast towards the candidate of their choice in the presidential election. Based on the Electoral College system their vote may possibly not be represented. Because of today’s society in the U.S. the Electoral College should be abolished because it is not necessary to use a middle-man to choose our president for us. It is a vote by the people, all of us having one voice, one vote.