For as long as democracy has been a concept capable of being debated, there has been controversy over what makes one form of democracy better than another. Democracy is very broadly defined by Aristotle as “the form of government in which the free are rulers” (63). Although he later expands on this definition, it still carries his core idea about democracy. Piggybacking on this fundamental grounding is the more contemporary idea of a limited democracy, defined by Huffman as “that form of [democracy] least likely to violate the liberties of its citizens” (62). While this definition of a limited democracy is very forthcoming about its intentions, its means have yet to be defined. Before this form of government can be implemented and perfected, …show more content…
One such limitation is the implementation of term limits on all legislatures. A relatively recent Harris poll found that “[b]y 76 percent to 21 percent, the public favors term limits for members of both the House and Senate” (Term Limits 4). This overwhelming public support for term limits should not only make it evident that term limits are necessary, but in and of itself have the power to bring about such term limits. Term limits in the congressional body of government would play a vital role in preventing corruption and insubordination from representatives. This effect would be achieved by increasing competition for office, decreasing financial incentive, and removing the glooming burden of re election carried by representatives each term, all of which would be direct effects of term limits. These effects would also help to encourage many citizens, who currently believe that the system is constantly being ran by the same people, to participate in elections. Another of the limitations that should be implemented in an ideal democracy are moderate wages for elected officials. These salaries should be based on the nations median income, which according to the United States Census Bureau is just over 55,000 dollars as of 2016. Giving the position such a moderate salary will help promote candidates who …show more content…
Addressing the issue of voter engagement, Prato and Wolton write,
We show that there exists a curse of the apathetic voter. Consistently with previous theories of democratic politics, we find when voters have too little incentive to pay attention to politics, the performance of the democratic system–measured in term of voters’ welfare–declines. More surprisingly, we uncover a curse of the engaged voter. Voters can be hurt and their level of political activity might decrease substantially when they care too much about politics. (2)
The lack of incentive felt by voters is often not perceived as a lack of initial incentive in a physical sense, but a feeling of disenfranchisement of the voting populus. Many times, people feel as though they have been betrayed by a system that does nothing to acknowledge their vote, but rather perpetuates politicians who fail to uphold their basic duties. To combat this potential for disillusion in the government, an ideal democracy will always be lead by the will of the people, and be framed in a manner that will discourage apathetic politicians from holding office. Along the same idea, over engaged voters are created by overly divisive, polarizing rhetoric that results in the same feeling of disenfranchisement felt by the “apathetic voters” (Prato 2). Although these voters are disillusioned
Democracy may be the best foundation on which to build a society, but to glorify it
"Miller light and bud light…either way you end up with a mighty weak beer!" This is how Jim Hightower (a Texan populist speaker) described the choices that the U.S. electorate had in the 2000 elections. This insinuates that there is a clear lack of distinction between the parties. Along with numerous others, this is one of the reasons why the turnout is so low in the U.S. elections. In trying to explain the low figures at the U.S. elections, analysts have called American voters apathetic to indifferent to downright lazy. I disagree that the 50% (in recent elections) of voters that fail to turnout to vote are lazy and that they have just reason not too. I will also show that the problem lies within the system itself in that the institutional arrangements, electoral and governmental, do not create an environment that is conducive to mass participation. I will address these main issues and several others that have an effect on voter participation. In doing so I will compare America to other established democracies.
Contrary to what may seem logical, majority votes under a compulsory voting system do not necessarily represent accurate opinion. Rather, compulsion encourages apathy, characterized by “a lack of concern, enthusiasm or interest” ("Definition of Voter Apathy"). In essence, voter apathy “occurs when voters decide that they really don’t care who wins or loses” ("Definition of Voter Apathy") due to “a general feeling that a person’s vote doesn’t matter or even a distrust in regards to how the election is actually being run” ("Definition of Voter Apathy").
In conclusion, Congressional representatives should be limited to serving two terms. Limiting the terms of career politicians will promote fresh ideas and reduce the possibility of decisions being made for self-interest. It is in our Country’s best interest that our legislator’s decisions are equitable and that compromises are not made to ensure their own or their parties stay in office.
Loewen, P. J., Milner, H., & Hicks, B. M. (1997). Does Compulsory Voting Lead To More Informed and Engaged Citizens? An Experimental Test. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 41(3), 655-672. Retrieved from http://journals1.scholarsportal.info.proxy.bib.uottawa.ca/tmp/44514596344978336.pdf
The United States national elections have been experiencing a steady decline of eligible voters showing up to vote. This steady decline has been ongoing since experiencing a significant increase in voter turnout from 1948 through 1960. Over the years there has been significant, meticulous research done to try to pinpoint the cause of the decline in voter turnout over years. All of this research has led to the production of an enormous number of literatures written on the perceived causes. The vast amount of literature produced has led to a number of competing explanations about this decline. The quest for the answer to the question of, why this decline in voter turnout, is very important for an overwhelming majority of Americans and our democratic system because the people/voters can only truly be represented by our government if all eligible voters go out and vote. For this paper I will examine four theories that attempt to explain the decline. The four theories that I will discuss are voting barriers, campaign contributions, negative campaign advertising, and finally the cultural explanation. However, through thorough exploration and critiques of the strengths and weaknesses of these four theories, we will find that the cultural explanation theory is currently the most persuasive theory in the group. Finally, I will also explore some reasons as to why citizens do vote as well.
One important reason Americans want to limit terms of their elected representatives is because they are likely to blame what they observe as professional and almost permanent ruling elect of career politicians for a majority of the country’s ill. Supporters of term limits claim the advantages of incumbency are so overpowering that they instead decrease representative democracy and diminish the effectiveness of the government. “Since 1950, about 90% of all incumbents in the House have won the reelection. The 10% who do not return includes both retiring members and those defeated in reelection attempts.” (Term Limits) “Proponents term limits argue that elected officials in Washington eventually become estrang...
Though, it would be refreshing to elect an official who remained focused on the best interest of their constituent, the reality is, special interest groups hold the purse. We must set term limits to prevent corruption and give the new comer on the block a fighting
Upon first examination, the idea of implementing term limits in Congress is appealing. In fact, the idea of term limits was initially discussed by our founders, though it was eventually decided that it should not be included in the Constitution (Newton-Small, 2010). The reasons for considering term limits have remained consistent since the beginning of the country, however, and include ensuring legislative turnover, limiting the abuse of the power of seniority, and decreasing the advantages given to incumbents in the campaign process. Interestingly, the states that have adopted term limits have not seen the expected positive outcomes, nor have the opponents seen the dire results that had been predicted. Upon further investigation, the case for term limits is strong as long as it is a nationally based initiative in order to create uniformity and the limits are long enough to increase competence in the job and head off short-term thinking, however without increased voter involvement, no reform will solve the current concerns with Congress.
Thus, inactivity in voting threatens the very legitimacy of our government. In the recent November 7, 2013 midterm election, a few counties reported a mere 4% of eligible voters actually participated, in some cases, in voting for a policy referendum that would affect how millions of dollars would be spent in the coming years.... ... middle of paper ... ...
Government exists to serve the people, and not the politicians, American citizens know this. Polls show that Americans want term limitation by margins as high as three-to-one, even four-to-one. Congressional term limitation is the most important issue of our time because the future direction of our country depends upon it. There is no other way to restore government to, us, the people. There is no substitute for term limits. There are many second steps, depending upon where you sit, but there is only one first step toward turning the country around. It is con...
When the United States was founded, the theme behind the new government was to establish an efficient system without doling out too much power to any one person. The Founders intended to prevent a rebirth of tyranny, which they had just escaped by breaking away from England. However, when members of Congress such as Tom Foley, who served as a Representative from 1964 through 1995, and Jack Brooks, who served as a Representative from 1952 through 1994, remain in the legislative system for over forty years, it is evident that tyranny has not necessarily been eradicated from the United States (Vance, 1994, p. 429). Term limits are a necessity to uphold the Founders’ intentions, to prevent unfair advantages given to incumbents, and to allow a multitude of additional benefits.
If you leave one person in congress for too long then they will never change their views and nothing new will ever get done. If there was a three of four term limit then people would work harder to get things done faster and pass bills that benefit the people because they know that they will only get reelected now because of that. With term limits in place, Congress will be more responsible toward their constituents because they will soon be constituents themselves. They...
In comparing the average citizen in a democratic nation, say the United States, to that of a non-democratic nation, for instance Egypt, it will be found that the citizen in the democratic nation is generally better off – free of persecution, free from fear of the authorities, and free to express his opinions on governmental matters. And while national conflicts occur everywhere, incidents like violent revolts have shown to be more prevalent in nations where citizens are not allowed to choose who governs them. It is slightly paradoxical that democracy, so inherently flawed in theory, can lead to such successful outcomes in practice. The question, then, becomes: “If democracy has so many weaknesses, why does it work?”
Throughout history different types of instrumental regimes have been in tact so civilizations remained structured and cohesive. As humanity advanced, governments obligingly followed. Although there have been hiccups from the ancient times to modern day, one type of government, democracy, has proven to be the most effective and adaptive. As quoted by Winston Churchill, democracy is the best form of government that has existed. This is true because the heart of democracy is reliant, dependent, and thrives on the populaces desires; which gives them the ability for maintaining the right to choose, over time it adjusts and fixes itself to engulf the prominent troubling issues, and people have the right of electing the person they deem appropriate and can denounce them once they no longer appease them. In this paper, the benefits of democracy are outlined, compared to autocratic communism, and finally the flaws of democracy are illustrated.