They will have better skill to advance the public good and run the government. However, when Madison examines the nature of human, he suggests the human nature is ambitious, which people might become corrupted. The representative might be controlled by the few or form a faction by themselves as well. For this reason, he advocates the number of representatives should be large enough to prevent
They both present good arguments backing their reasoning behind whether they agree with the system or not. Critics who believe in the reformation of the electoral college argue that the electoral college opens up the possibility of electing a minority president due to the risk of so-called "faithless" electors. This would mean that certain electors do not vote for their party 's designated candidate like they pledged to. There is also the argument that the Electoral College plays a major role in depressing voter turnout. This could be the case if people really think about and understand the electoral college, thus realizing that they are voting purely for electors and not directly voting for the next president.
One happens to be it been here since we created the constitution and simply because it works. Another reason is that it “maintains a federal system of government and representation” (Creasman, Carl.). It stabilizes the political system encouraging a two party system. The system is not meant to be perfect but to work in a rational ways such as if a candidate is getting most votes they should receive most colleges win but in very close instances in history show that you can win majority rule and not achieve all the colleges. This eliminates a focus on a minority groups also.
Federal politicians use desultory commands as leverage to ensure that the states comply with their wishes. The federal government cannot tell the states what to do but such schemes are just unfair. An amendment abolishing federal mandates would create a stronger democracy by giving the state legislatures full control over the implementation of laws at the discretion of the voters thus placing power back in the heart of the US democracy, the people, where it belongs. Some may argue that adding an amendment eradicat... ... middle of paper ... ... foreign land but, it is that very government not letting them have a celebratory drink upon their return home. An amendment to the constitution eradicating federal mandates would make lead the country to be more democratic by once again placing the majority of the say in the hands of the people and therefore, with the state legislatures.
But if it were popular vote than presidential candidates would then have to make sure that all of America was pleased with their campaign instead of a select few. Secondly instead of winning the entire state, why wouldn 't it be better for the candidates to only win a fraction of the state? Such as breaking up the electoral votes. The winner takes all strategy is no longer working as we can see candidates do not spend time in states such as Idaho or Utah. If they were to break up the vote they would finally be able to say that their voting method provides equal representation.
Contrary to public opinion, every vote makes a difference in this process. It may not seem like it, but if more people began to vote, they would get noticed. To let our representatives know what we want, we must also exert our political influence by being politically active. How can we do this? We can vote in state, local, and national elections, lobby to persuade our representatives to vote a certain way, and write letters to our representatives about policy issues.
that would otherwise go through the legislative branch. These referendums, in effect, could be used to eliminate the current legislative branch and replace it with a much larger and more representative one: the American people.I think this would be an interesting think to pilot at the county or state level. The Internet would make it much more feasible today than it would have been even 15 years ago. Although this is quite a radical idea, I feel it would be an improvement to electing representatives with their own personal agendas that can differ largely from their “valiant” causes which are paraded about through the media and are said to be what the candidates stand for. This action would help to reduce the chance of corruption in our government but not completely remedy it.
Posner, a judge at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, promotes the Electoral College despite its faults. He argued the College provided a clear winner, whereas a direct vote would result in very close elections repeatedly, which could lead to time consuming recounts. Posner also brought up the point that the Electoral College encourages “transregional” candidates. He claims that because no region has enough electors on its own to elect a president, candidates must appeal to areas across the nation. Posner argues that this is good because a regional president would likely alienate many voters who didn’t vote for them because they might feel like that president would not protect their interests.
Electoral College The Electoral College is not important in choosing the president of the United States. I agree with this because it should matter what the voters say, this is a democracy and it should be the people’s final choice, and if the Electoral College changes the voters’ choice then they will be the ones to blame if our country goes haywire. The Electoral College has a final say in which president will be chosen. It’s not right because if the majority of the voters choose one president and the Electoral College chooses another then most of the voters will be upset. They chose that certain president for a reason and it would just be a waste of their time if the candidate they voted for didn’t get elected.
Rather than a government elected by only 40% of the electorate, which would establish poor roots for the democracy of that government, election campaigns get more, and a wider range of the electorate actively involved, ensuring higher turnouts at the polls, and thus a higher standard of democracy. Parties are also trying to encourage mor... ... middle of paper ... ...parties have shown themselves to be adapting their policies, parties often water down these new ideas to fit their ideological framework. They often avoid radical policy change for the sake of political safety. This threatens democracy as it narrows the scope for proper political debate on key issues. In conclusion, although it can be argued that political parties are indeed promoting democracy through several factors of their composition, it is evident that there is still much room for improvement.