Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essay on the election process in american politics
Corruption in politics
Corruption in the us government
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Essay on the election process in american politics
First, I would like to invite you guys to exercise your imaginations. Once upon a time, there was a country called Perryland. Like the United States, this country has 320 million people. 150,000, or around .05%, of the population are named Perry. They have an extremely special power. In Perryland, there are two elections every cycle. The first is the Perry election, where only people named Perry are allowed to vote. The second is the general election, where everyone can. In order to run in the general election, candidates must first do well in the Perry election. Perryland is a democracy, but the candidates have to make it through the Perry election first. These candidates are dependent on both the Perrys, and the people. These two conflicting dependencies create a big problem for Perryland.
Perryland is America. Like Perryland, we have both the people’s election, and the “cash election”. “.05%” of America gave the maximum amount to any federal candidate, which is the same number of Perrys in Perryland. In 1788, James Madison declared “the federal government ought to be dependent on the people alone”. Our government, our congress, has evolved. Studies show that members of congress now spend more time raising funds than they do working. Congress now only works for around 100 days per year, and the number is slowly decreasing. In 2010, almost 2 billion dollars was raised for just over 500 candidates. Congress members now have a constant awareness about how every decision they make will affect their ability to raise money in the future.
Imagine a doctor working at a medical school. The doctor has to decide which of these competing drugs she should recommend to her students. One of the companies begins offering her paid advert...
... middle of paper ...
...quality, and tax reform… There is one thing that is keeping our government from solving these urgent and greatly important issues: the corruption, meaning the dependency on the funders instead of the people. Ever hear of the 1% during the Occupy Wall Street movement? The number we should be caring about is the .05%.
We the people of the United States of America demand change. We demand a government that works for the people alone. So go support the giving of small amounts to our candidates, to help rid our system of the “big money” donations. Being kids, this is a problem that we must deal with. We will be growing up into this society. We have lost our constitutional republic, which was once dependent on “the people alone”. We have lost the constitutional republic that our founding fathers created back in 1787. We must act now, because this is our government.
An issue in Texas today is whether the public have sufficient control over the executive branch of Texas government. Texas has a plural executive, which mean the public not only elects the Lieutenant Governor, but also the Attorney General, Comptroller, Land Commissioner, and Agricultural Commissioner (Benson, Clinkscale, and Giardino 216). These elections add significantly to the “long ballet” that the public can vote for. Some argue that because there are so many to vote for, people cannot adequately vote for the positions. The research and attention needed to stay up to date on the elections can steer people away from voting. Many people vote for the governor and the lieutenant governor because of the title and how high the positions are.
...ilities of Congress is that minorities and factions exist: dissent takes place, not disagreements. Verbal brawls take place rather than actual argumentation, and that is what kills democracy. That is why things never get done.
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
Texas politics is an interesting ecosystem of power, rules and regulations. Of course, in typical Texas fashion, most of the politics we engage in we do our own way. From governors who stay in office for a decade to our extremely diverse demographics, Texas is extremely unique. This uniqueness of course comes with its critics, benefits, and downsides. This is particularly true with the Texas Court system compared to both the federal courts and many other states.
... outweigh this potential (but not proven) appearance of corruption. The real potential for corruption is related to direct contributions. However, the Court has imposed checks on this aspect of elections. It seems that any proposed system, even the current one, could be targeted as allowing for corruption, or for a disproportionate influence, or for a limitation on free speech. The important thing, therefore, is that the courts balance all these potential harms for the sake of protecting the democratic process and the First Amendment. The current system places checks in the areas where corruption is the most likely, and allows for the most expression in the areas where corruption is minimal at best. This gives citizens the great ability to influence elections and critically discuss candidates, while ensuring that politicians are accountable for their actions.
While an imbalance has always been prevalent in the classes of American society, recent decisions in the Supreme Court favoring less campaign finance control have disregarded the growing gap between the upper echelon and the lower class. The U.S. Supreme Court has fully given way to elitist rule, allowing the wealthy to wield their natural tenacities to grow dollar bills from rocks and plant them kindly into the pockets of political candidates that would support their hidden agendas of clandestine rule and continued hegemonification of the lower class. As recent as April 2, 2014 in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, the U.S. Supreme court released the contribution limits placed on the wealthy under the pretense of free speech as provided by the first amendment. In order to prevent further dissemination to the balance of equality amongst the classes within the United States, it is imperative for Congress to start the implementation of a detailed Constitutional Amendment defining strict regulations regarding funding towards political campaigns, as well as a clear definition to the inherent differences between an individual and a corporate entity or “faction.”
Regardless of the political environment, it is the responsibility of voters to take initiative in becoming politically involved. However, the current electoral system in the United States is not one that fosters voter participation, but instead often discourages voting altogether. This is evidenced through the lackluster voter turnout in the United States, which is amongst the lowest of any democratic nation. While it is convenient to blame this lack of democratic participation on a lazy and apathetic public, the root of the problem lies elsewhere. The current system of winner-take-all elections, strategic gerrymandering, incumbency advantage and governmental unresponsiveness to constituent desires is enough to deter even the most politically consci...
The United States has strived to be a true democracy, a place in which the citizens are free to govern themselves, since its inception. For a democracy to work, the citizens must remain knowledgeable and elections must remain unbiased. Our current system of electing presidents fails in both of these regards: citizens are only given two choices that stand any chance of winning and their decisions between those two candidates are influenced not by knowledge, but instead by what they have seen on thirty second television commercials. In order to break up the complete political monopoly the Democrat and Republican Parties have on the United States, we as Americans need to reform our presidential elections so that third party and independent candidates have a legitimate chance of holding offices and so that citizens are able to vote on the candidates based on their political beliefs rather than on their ability to fundraise and advertise. Similar reforms should be made to the elections for other offices as well at the federal, state and local levels. The ideas and arguments presented in this paper can be applied to American elections in general although, because of the small scope of this paper, they only speak of the presidential elections.
As a result of the court case Arizona Free Enterprise v. Bennett, it was decided that citizens should be encouraged to help in financing campaigns. When there is increased participation from citizens, self-governance is greatly facilitated. The goal of public financing is to push citizens to help the political candidate of their choice financially. Many reformers have suggested that there is too much money in politics. Statistically, this is proven to be wrong. In the 2008 election, there were 64% of Americans that were eligible to vote. There were only about 10% that give money to the campaigns, and not even 0.5% who are responsible for the bulk amount of money collected by the politicians (Overton, 2012).
Election campaigns require tremedous financial resources, so bought-and-paid-for politicians are servants of a financial aristocracy and not rather representatives of the American people.
The issue of campaign financing has been discussed for a long time. Running for office especially a higher office is not a cheap event. Candidates must spend much for hiring staff, renting office space, buying ads etc. Where does the money come from? It cannot officially come from corporations or national banks because that has been forbidden since 1907 by Congress. So if the candidate is not extremely rich himself the funding must come from donations from individuals, party committees, and PACs. PACs are political action committees, which raise funds from different sources and can be set up by corporations, labor unions or other organizations. In 1974, the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) requires full disclosure of any federal campaign contributions and expenditures and limits contributions to all federal candidates and political committees influencing federal elections. In 1976 the case Buckley v. Valeo upheld the contribution limits as a measure against bribery. But the Court did not rule against limits on independent expenditures, support which is not coordinated with the candidate. In the newest development, the McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission ruling from April 2014 the supreme court struck down the aggregate limits on the amount an individual may contribute during a two-year period to all federal candidates, parties and political action committees combined. Striking down the restrictions on campaign funding creates a shift in influence and power in politics and therefore endangers democracy. Unlimited campaign funding increases the influence of few rich people on election and politics. On the other side it diminishes the influence of the majority, ordinary (poor) people, the people.
The Pharmaceutical Industry goals is to get as much profit incentive as possible through clinical trials, social networking, ads driving in a social movement in the demand for consumer goods. Patients have become more knowledgeable, demanding, and critical of medical care (Williams & Calman 1996). The internet has facilitated consumer involvement by offering easily accessible health-related information and providing a method for communication among like minded individuals (Hardey 2001). Medicalization from an analytical stand point is facilitated by the development of innovative technologies, consumer demands and the emergence of new medical markets in the hands of pharmaceutical enterprises. When medical products, services, or treatments are promoted to consumers to improve their health, appearance, or well-being, we see the development of medical market (Conrad & Leiter 2004).The race for cure, a Breast Cancer Awareness organization has been developed into a commodity for selling pink ribbons and bands. The awareness of Breast cancer is not being fully recognized by those who may not be knowledgeable of the treatments, mammograms, screening and essentially anything cancer related if the focus is on the marketing of products. Oftentimes, these corporations, sponsors, pharmaceuticals are concern with capitalizing on the health of the patience through empowering ads, to maximizing profits. Through private and
I’ve loved politics since I was in 6th grade, I didn’t always have the best understanding of it all when I was younger but I was able to recognize that there were a lot of citizens who were disgruntled with their government’s progress. For example, as of August 2014, congresses’ approval rating is only 14% (Riffkin, 2014). As I’ve aged I realized that the recent Supreme Court decisions regarding corporate money and personal spending limits have made the government a less effective tool for the American citizens and that is why I’ve chosen to write on the influence of money in politics. I believe this is the most important political issue that we currently face because we are unable to pass the bills that reflect the views of the American people
Marketers operating in the drug industry have to push their products which then raises the ethical questions that surround the profession of medical delivery. Pharmaceutical companies disburse billions of dollars annually to research, develop, and market drugs. Every pharmacy company needs the endorsement of their drugs from physicians and doctors, so they have to ensure that the doctors are well treated. According to the Pew Charitable Trust, the pharmaceutical corporation spent over $27 billion on advertising alone in 2012, with $24 billion of that dedicated to marketing to physicians. (Kessel, 2014) A further survey conducted by Deloitte shows that 35% of the doctors accept some gratuity payment from the pharmacy companies and 16% of the doctors take money to represent the pharmacy company in conferences and health camps. (Kessel, 2014) The Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education declares that pharmaceutical and medical equipment companies funded almost one-third of continuing medical education (CME) opportunities for doctors in 2011.( (Barnett, 1989)
In deciphering what constitutes the brilliance of democracy then, we find that it is not citizens’ ability to make informed decisions or an unflawed and subtly manipulated election process, but the unapparent way in which democracy persuades citizens – informed or not - and leaders – corrupt or not – toward working to build better, more prosperous societies.