During any election period there is more emphasis on “swing states”. The basic definition of swing states is when a state has nearly equal number of Republican and Democratic voters. With this, many people believe that ‘only swing states matter’ simply because there is an even playing ground. These states hold the final decision of who will become the President of the country. In simple terms, the statement ‘swing states only matter’ is valid because they give a fair trial as to who the candidate really is without only seeing them for the party they are in. Basically swing states are the states which have nearly equal number of voters for democratic and republican party. Unlike non-swing states, there is an actual head to head battle with the candidates. According to Hamline political science professor David Schultz in his text, Why only 10 Matter, “But for those in Ohio, Florida, Colorado, Iowa, and a handful of other states, their votes matter. These states will be battered with a barrage of presidential candidate visits, commercials, political spending, and countless stories about them by the media." This simply only …show more content…
Majority of the swing states normally went for the democratic candidate. In Nevada of 2012 52.4% of Nevada's voters went with Obama in 2012, while 45.7% for Mitt Romney. Similarly, Colorado, the state which has helped immensely with the presidential campaign 51.5% chose Obama while the remaining 46.1% chose Romney. When the candidate is able to have the majority of the votes, they automatically gain the support of the entire state. This is called the winner takes all method. For example, for the 2012 election, Ohio made Obama be re-elected for president because he was able to have 50.8% of the votes. With this data, it is crucial how important swing states are. These states basically judge the final decision of the future of the
A state's primary election or caucus is usually an indirect election: instead of voters directly selecting a particular person running for President, they determine the delegates each party's national convention will receive from their respective state. These delegates then in turn select their party's presidential These unplugged or superdelegates do not need to vote the way their constituents would prefer, making a few men or women as powerful as a whole county in a state. Also the states’ primaries and caucuses are held over about four months with about four states on average each week. The overall results of the primary season may not be representative of the U.S. electorate as a whole: voters in Iowa, New Hampshire and other less populous states which traditionally hold their primaries and caucuses in Late-January/February usually have a major impact on the races, while voters in California and other large states which traditionally hold their primaries in June generally end up having no say because the races are usually over by then.
This paper will be focusing on Robert Casey better known as “Bob” Casey the Senator from Pennsylvania. Casey was born and raised on April 13, 1960, in Scranton Pennsylvania. Casey; “graduated from The College of the Holy Cross in 1982 and spent the following year teaching fifth grade and coaching eighth-grade basketball in inner city Philadelphia for the Jesuit Volunteer Corps”. (Senate.gov) Later on, he received his law degree from Catholic University in 1988. He married to his wife Teresa and has 4 children. In 2002 Casey wanted to follow his father into running for governor of Pennsylvania, however, he was defeated, later becoming the “treasurer” in the elections of 2004. Casey was first elected to the senate in 2006 as a Democrat, showing as one of the second highest victories since “1920” against an incumbent Senator. Later in 2012, he was re-elected becoming the first Democrat Senator into serving a full term and into being re-elected as a Pennsylvania Senator. Casey has become and followed the step of his father who was also a governor.
Section 1. of the Amendment XXVI of the Constitution of the United States (US) states that the right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age. Both houses of the Congress passed the amendment in March 1971.With thirty-eight states adopting it by July 1971; the 26th Amendment was ratified because the prerequisite for three-fourths of states approval had been achieved. President Nixon signed the amendment into law in the same year making the 26th constitutional amendment the quickest to ever be incorporated into the US Constitution. The amendment evoked diverse reactions amongst the public, with some saw it as a judicious
majority of the states, and those that were on the ballot in a majority of
Florida is a good example of what I'm talking about--not because that state turned out to make the decisive difference in this week's election, but because more than 2 million voters--nearly as many as will go to the winning candidate--had no say in the outcome. All of Florida's 25 electoral votes will go to the other guy.
If you think on the Election Day, you just voted for US president, then you are mistaken, just like millions of Americans who hope their votes will pick the next president. When voting for President, we actually vote for state electors who hold electoral votes. Electoral votes are the votes that decide the victory of a candidate in an election. This Electoral College System has limited democracy to people in three major ways. Electoral College holds the ability to alter the results of elections over popular votes, discriminates against candidates to campaign in certain states, and creates high voter turnouts.
It pushes the two-party system and disregards states. Majority of the presidential campaigning is between the major parties in American: Republican and Democrats. So campaigning is spent on swaying the people to cast their votes for either candidate. Presidential campaigns have clear tendency to concentrated their resources on state both candidates have certainty pull while ignoring the states that favors one candidate or the other. With the winner-take-all system, a candidate that already is well ahead in a particular state doesn’t spend any more time trying to campaign in the state nor either does the losing candidate try to win over the state. So, candidates will tend not to bother with states where they are either ahead or behind. For example, Massachusetts’ residents said that during the 2000 general election, they rarely saw campaign advertising from either major-party candidate (Gregg, 2003). By fact that Massachusetts was counted to be in favor of Gore. And by contrast, residents of Illinois complained about having been overwhelmed by presidential campaign ads. Illinois was swamped with campaign ads because according to the polls, it was characterized as a “battleground state (Gregg, 2003). Another example is the 1960 election between Senator John Kennedy and Vice President Ricard Nixon. In Stanley Kelley’s study, it found out that both Kennedy and Nixon spent seventy-four percent of their total campaign
The Electoral College requires a presidential candidate to have transregional appeal. No region (South, Northeast, etc.) has enough electoral votes to elect a president. This ensures that whoever gets elected has policies that do not just appeal to one or two major population centers, but rather to the country as a whole. America is conglomeration of fifty states all joined together. The size of America makes it a very diverse country. Farmers living in rural towns in the midwest have very different concerns and beliefs, than someone living in a liberal city like New York or the suburbs of New Jersey. The electoral college requited the president to be everyone president, while also allocating more votes to areas with a larger
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
Voting is at the center of every democratic system. In america, it is the system in which a president is elected into office, and people express their opinion. Many people walk into the voting booth with the thought that every vote counts, and that their vote might be the one that matters above all else. But in reality, America’s voting system is old and flawed in many ways. Electoral College is a commonly used term on the topic of elections but few people actually know how it works.
The electors in each state are equal to the number of representatives that state has in Congress resulting in at least three electors per state regardless of population (McKenzie 285). Each state has two votes to correspond to the senators representing that state in Congress, and then each state has one vote to correspond to the House representative that represents that state in Congress. Smaller states comprise a higher percentage of the total electoral votes than would a popular vote for the president in those states (Muller 1257). The Founders intended the Electoral College to protect overshadowing the small states’ interests of the larger populous states by allowing at least three representative votes rather than none at all, and the smaller states were not willing to give control of the election process to the larger states, which was similar to their fight for representation in Congress (Muller 1250). However, it ignores the people who voted against the winner, since once the result is determined at the state level; the losing voters no longer have any significance nationally (Wagner 579). Wagner also points to the fact that the winner-take-all system can lead to selecting the minority candidate over the majority vote, as in the George
Texas is one of the seven states that have no state income tax. This means the state does not impose an additional state income taxes on someone’s earnings, but there is still a federal income tax. While many claim this is beneficial to all of Texas citizens and promotes population growth others find it disadvantaging. Their is many disadvantages and advantages to not having a state income tax.
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
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.
Polls have a role in political campaigns and shaping government policies but recently the reliability of polls have come into question. The Republican polls provided the information to Presidential candidate Mitt Romney that he had a strong chance of winning key battle ground states. The polls showed "he had at least 267 out of the 270 electoral votes needed to win the election" (Hoffman). When watching the election night returns the reality was Romney only received 206 Electoral College votes far away from the magic number needed to win or tie the national election. The candidate’s team used these polls and focused on states that showed a strong chance to gain votes. Romney focused his energy in Ohio and Pennsylvania, both states he eventually lost.