First, take the quiz on the electoral college and see how you do.
http://www.funtrivia.com/playquiz/quiz2050425c048.html
Then play the electoral college game and learn strategy:
http://teacher.scholastic.com/scholasticnews/indepth/election2008/games/candidate/
Now fix the system:
Your task is to create a revised electoral process for electing the President. Your mission is to address the following issues:
Popular sovereignty
Big state vs. small state
Urban vs. Rural
Your proposal must demonstrate a better system by answering the following questions:
1. How is your system an improvement over the current electoral college?
2. Who would disapprove of your new system and why?
3. What specific areas does your system address? Why did they need to be changed?
4. How different would a campaign look under your new system?
The answers to these questions are due on Thursday, 10/27.
http://www.270towin.com/
http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/close-us-presidential-elections
http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/electoral-college
Monday 24 October 2011
Class President
¢Our class will be holding elections the fourth Tuesday in November for the following office:
—Classroom President
Primaries will be held on the second Wednesday in November to narrow down the field to two candidates.
¢
¢To run in the primaries, each candidate must present to Mr. Blais 30 valid signatures. These signatures are due the class before primary elections.
The class will vote for by ballot the top two candidates.
¢
¢The President will be rewarded with the following:
1.10 extra points on the any exam they choose
2.The power to raise one homework grade to a 100 for any two students they wish (1 time per student)
The power to hand out 10 multiple choice answer coupons (or keep them for themselves). 3.
¢Campaign posters may be put up in the classroom
¢Speeches will be allowed the first 10 minutes of class on designated days
¢Campaign pins or t-shirts may be worn
¢
—
Friday 21 October 2011
Evolution of political Parties
A political party is a group of people who work to influence policy agendas and hold government power by seeking to elect candidates to public office. The Federalist Party and the Democratic-Republican Party were the first political parties in the United States
The parties disagreed about which layer of the government should hold the greater share of power, the national or the state governments. The Federalists, who were mostly wealthy, educated men, were proponents of a very strong central government.Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans opposed this. They claimed that Congress should develop policies that would aid “common” people, like shopkeepers and farmers.
Regionalism and economics also divided the two parties. The Federalists had a stronghold in theNew England and middle colonies. They also had strength in the urban areas that represented an economic base of commerce and manufacturing, while the Democratic-Republicans were regionally dominant and enjoyed the following of the agrarian interests.
The Federalists lost control of the presidency after Thomas Jefferson defeated the incumbent President John Adams, in 1801. This ushered in the dominance of the Democratic-Republican Party that lasted until the Civil War.
The second political party system consisted of the Democratic Party and the Whig Party, which lasted from approximately 1828 until 1856. This party system is often referred to as the Jacksonian Era, as Democrats were followers of General Andrew Jackson.Jackson
The Whigs were a loose coalition that followed Daniel Webster and Henry Clay. They were opposed to Jacksonian democracy and gained the support of bankers, merchants, and industrialists in the east and planters in the south. Whigs were dedicated to defending federal authority and a high protective tariff.
In the 1850’s, the issue of slavery split both parties. While the Whigs fell apart due to lack of leadership, the Democrats split into two sharply opposing factions, the Northern Democrats and the Southern Democrats.
In contrast, the issue of slavery helped form the Republican Party, which consisted of many former Whigs and developed as a third party in the 1850’s. The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 allowed the territories ofKansas and Nebraska to decide the slavery issue for themselves, repealing the Missouri Compromise that had established an imaginary line between the slave and free states
Supported by farmers, laborers, and business owners, as well as newly freed African-Americans, the Republicans gathered enough support to elect Abraham Lincoln as president in 1860. The issue of slavery, combined with the Civil War, brought about the complete realignment of the parties and a nearly 75-year Republican reign. The Republican Party Era lasted from 1860, through the Reconstruction period, and then into the early 1900’s until the nation experienced a massive shock to its economic, social, and political system—the Great Depression.
The stock-market crash of 1929, and the subsequent Depression, was a national trauma that spilt and once again realignedAmerica America
The Progressive Party, a third party that formed in the early 1900’s, disagreed. Progressivism realigned the Democratic Party with the rise of leaders such as Franklin D. Roosevelt, who won the presidency in 1932 by promisingAmerica Roosevelt assured Americans legislation that would boost the economy and end the Depression. The New Deal created a coalition of laborers, minorities, southerners, and urban voters. This era marked a shift in the paradigm of government leadership, asserting that government must become more involved in the economic and social conditions of the nation. The New Deal and the reign of the Democrats lasted until another national crisis shook the country in 1968—the Vietnam War.
A fourth period of two-party domination of national politics began in 1968 with the Republican Party and the Democratic Party and continues today. During this new era, presidential politics have been dominated by Republican presidents, while the Democrats have controlled Congress. In 1994, during the Democratic presidency of Bill Clinton, the Republicans took control of Congress. As of 2004, the Republicans continued to control the House of Representatives, but the Senate was evenly divided.
The parties disagreed about which layer of the government should hold the greater share of power, the national or the state governments. The Federalists, who were mostly wealthy, educated men, were proponents of a very strong central government.
Regionalism and economics also divided the two parties. The Federalists had a stronghold in the
The Federalists lost control of the presidency after Thomas Jefferson defeated the incumbent President John Adams, in 1801. This ushered in the dominance of the Democratic-Republican Party that lasted until the Civil War.
The second political party system consisted of the Democratic Party and the Whig Party, which lasted from approximately 1828 until 1856. This party system is often referred to as the Jacksonian Era, as Democrats were followers of General Andrew Jackson.
The Whigs were a loose coalition that followed Daniel Webster and Henry Clay. They were opposed to Jacksonian democracy and gained the support of bankers, merchants, and industrialists in the east and planters in the south. Whigs were dedicated to defending federal authority and a high protective tariff.
In the 1850’s, the issue of slavery split both parties. While the Whigs fell apart due to lack of leadership, the Democrats split into two sharply opposing factions, the Northern Democrats and the Southern Democrats.
In contrast, the issue of slavery helped form the Republican Party, which consisted of many former Whigs and developed as a third party in the 1850’s. The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 allowed the territories of
Supported by farmers, laborers, and business owners, as well as newly freed African-Americans, the Republicans gathered enough support to elect Abraham Lincoln as president in 1860. The issue of slavery, combined with the Civil War, brought about the complete realignment of the parties and a nearly 75-year Republican reign. The Republican Party Era lasted from 1860, through the Reconstruction period, and then into the early 1900’s until the nation experienced a massive shock to its economic, social, and political system—the Great Depression.
The stock-market crash of 1929, and the subsequent Depression, was a national trauma that spilt and once again realigned
The Progressive Party, a third party that formed in the early 1900’s, disagreed. Progressivism realigned the Democratic Party with the rise of leaders such as Franklin D. Roosevelt, who won the presidency in 1932 by promising
A fourth period of two-party domination of national politics began in 1968 with the Republican Party and the Democratic Party and continues today. During this new era, presidential politics have been dominated by Republican presidents, while the Democrats have controlled Congress. In 1994, during the Democratic presidency of Bill Clinton, the Republicans took control of Congress. As of 2004, the Republicans continued to control the House of Representatives, but the Senate was evenly divided.
Party Identification
A person’s loyalty to or preference for one political party is called party identification. When people identify with a party, they usually agree with the party’s stance on a few major issues and give little weight to its stance on issues they consider minor or secondary. An individual’s party identification tends to be life long unless there is a major shift in a party’s agenda or problems with its leadership.
Several factors influence party identification, and one of these factors is a person’s race. In the years following the Civil War, the majority of African Americans and Northerners favored the Republican Party. Many African Americans changed their party identification during the 1930s Depression Era, when they began supporting the Democratic Party and its New Deal policies. The 1960s civil rights movement marked another shift in which African Americans increasingly supported Democratic candidates at the polls. In the last half of the twentieth century, African Americans and Mexican Americans have tended to be Democrats. Conversely, other Hispanics such as Cubans have shown strong allegiance to the Republican Party.
A person’s gender also influences his or her party identification, especially in areas concerning abortion, equal pay, the military, and affirmative action. Some women today support the Democratic Party because of its liberal position on such issues. However, men and women who belong to evangelical Christian groups tend to favor the family-values platforms of the Republican Party.
People’s religious beliefs, whether strongly held or not, are another big influence on their party identification. Catholics were once loyal Democrats but have switched their support to the Republican Party. Two issues that contributed to this shift are abortion and birth control—issues on which Republicans usually take a more conservative stance than Democrats. Protestant Christians, especially those who identify themselves as evangelical, also favor the Republican Party for its stance on family values, homosexuality, and abortion. However, the American Jewish community is still strongly Democratic, as they have been for the last half-century.
Education and economics also affect a person’s party identification. Highly educated people usually have higher-paying jobs, and consequently better economic status, than the less educated. Middle-class white-collar workers tend to be Republican, whereas blue-collar, union, and working-class people tend to be Democrats. This economic party alignment is true for all races within these economic classifications. Also, urban populations, which typically tend to have lower income and economic status, identify strongly with the Democrats, while suburban voters typically tend to identify with the Republican Party.
Education can have a liberalizing effect on individuals. This idea, however, should not be construed to mean that all well-educated people are liberals—quite the opposite is true. However, well-educated conservatives tend to be less conservative than they were before they attended college. Colleges usually allow individuals to question assumptions, experiment with new ideas, and experience the world in ways the individual had not prior to going to college, all of which can have liberalizing effects. In this way, college can also make those who are already liberal even more liberal. This effect can be seen among the “intelligentsia” class, which consists of very liberal intellectuals who tend to be Democrats. These intellectuals can be found at higher education institutions such asBerkeley
Age is another factor that helps determine a person’s party identification. Young people usually identify with the party their parents support. Although important, the age factor is less influential than race, gender, religion, and economics in determining party identification.
Historically, voters who identified with a party voted for that party’s candidates in all of the elections in which they voted. This trend has been changing since the 1960s, however, because people have access to more information during election periods. People who once relied heavily on political parties for information now get it from television, radio programs, and the Internet. This access to information not only makes voters less dependent on political parties but also makes them less likely to vote along party lines in all elections.
Another reason why voters no longer vote strictly along party lines is because they now have greater access to personal information about political candidates. A candidate’s image is important to voters. If a party’s candidate does not meet people’s expectations, they often vote for a different party’s candidate.
Several factors influence party identification, and one of these factors is a person’s race. In the years following the Civil War, the majority of African Americans and Northerners favored the Republican Party. Many African Americans changed their party identification during the 1930s Depression Era, when they began supporting the Democratic Party and its New Deal policies. The 1960s civil rights movement marked another shift in which African Americans increasingly supported Democratic candidates at the polls. In the last half of the twentieth century, African Americans and Mexican Americans have tended to be Democrats. Conversely, other Hispanics such as Cubans have shown strong allegiance to the Republican Party.
A person’s gender also influences his or her party identification, especially in areas concerning abortion, equal pay, the military, and affirmative action. Some women today support the Democratic Party because of its liberal position on such issues. However, men and women who belong to evangelical Christian groups tend to favor the family-values platforms of the Republican Party.
People’s religious beliefs, whether strongly held or not, are another big influence on their party identification. Catholics were once loyal Democrats but have switched their support to the Republican Party. Two issues that contributed to this shift are abortion and birth control—issues on which Republicans usually take a more conservative stance than Democrats. Protestant Christians, especially those who identify themselves as evangelical, also favor the Republican Party for its stance on family values, homosexuality, and abortion. However, the American Jewish community is still strongly Democratic, as they have been for the last half-century.
Education and economics also affect a person’s party identification. Highly educated people usually have higher-paying jobs, and consequently better economic status, than the less educated. Middle-class white-collar workers tend to be Republican, whereas blue-collar, union, and working-class people tend to be Democrats. This economic party alignment is true for all races within these economic classifications. Also, urban populations, which typically tend to have lower income and economic status, identify strongly with the Democrats, while suburban voters typically tend to identify with the Republican Party.
Education can have a liberalizing effect on individuals. This idea, however, should not be construed to mean that all well-educated people are liberals—quite the opposite is true. However, well-educated conservatives tend to be less conservative than they were before they attended college. Colleges usually allow individuals to question assumptions, experiment with new ideas, and experience the world in ways the individual had not prior to going to college, all of which can have liberalizing effects. In this way, college can also make those who are already liberal even more liberal. This effect can be seen among the “intelligentsia” class, which consists of very liberal intellectuals who tend to be Democrats. These intellectuals can be found at higher education institutions such as
Age is another factor that helps determine a person’s party identification. Young people usually identify with the party their parents support. Although important, the age factor is less influential than race, gender, religion, and economics in determining party identification.
Historically, voters who identified with a party voted for that party’s candidates in all of the elections in which they voted. This trend has been changing since the 1960s, however, because people have access to more information during election periods. People who once relied heavily on political parties for information now get it from television, radio programs, and the Internet. This access to information not only makes voters less dependent on political parties but also makes them less likely to vote along party lines in all elections.
Another reason why voters no longer vote strictly along party lines is because they now have greater access to personal information about political candidates. A candidate’s image is important to voters. If a party’s candidate does not meet people’s expectations, they often vote for a different party’s candidate.
Political Party Functions
A political party is a group of people who try to influence policy agendas and whose ultimate goal is to run the government by getting their favorite candidates elected. Two political parties, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, have long dominated American government and politics. These and other parties are typically differentiated by their beliefs, principles, and policy agenda. In other words, they can be distinguished by their political ideologies.
Political parties have several functions in local, state, and national politics. One function is to create a rally point or “home” for diverse groups that share similar economic, social, or political concerns. If there is dissention among factions, political party representatives work to find compromise and build coalitions. The more people they can bring together, the more likely it is that their candidates will be elected. One point around which a political party might rally people is the economy. If the economy is good, the incumbent’s party will use it to support re-election; if the economy is bad, the challenger can use that as a point of attack.
Another function of political parties is to simplify the voting process for the electorate. Imagine what would happen if 20 people ran in the same election for President of theUnited States
A third function of political parties is to generate excitement about an election. The parties organize rallies, parades, conventions, and speeches to capture voters’ attention and educate them about candidates’ backgrounds and campaign platforms. Generating excitement is also useful for raising campaign funds. Today, political parties hold fundraisers at which people and organizations donate millions of dollars of “soft money,” which is not limited or regulated by the Federal Election Commission, toward campaigns. These organized activities also show the media where to shine their spotlights, giving candidates wider name recognition and spreading campaign messages to people who do not directly participate in the parties’ activities.
Organizing the government is a fourth function of political parties. Although not set up this way in the U.S. Constitution, both the state and federal legislatures are centered on the parties. The reason is that the majority of officeholders are affiliated with a political party that played a role in their election. Strong party affiliations have led to partisanship, which means officeholders base their decisions on the party’s interests.
Partisan politics are also a consideration in the executive and judicial branches of government. For example, when a Supreme Court justice retires, the President will likely appoint a new justice who shares the same party affiliation. Sometimes, however, the President will select one or more opposing party members for the Cabinet as a show of “good faith.”
A fifth function of political parties is accountability—people hold their political parties responsible for making sure officeholders fulfill platform and campaign promises. The electorate judges officeholders’ success by whether the agenda issues have been addressed. Political parties track the success of their own party members in office as well as the failures of officeholders from rival parties. Documenting what the people in office have and have not accomplished gives the parties support for their positions and “ammunition” against opponents in future elections.
Political parties have several functions in local, state, and national politics. One function is to create a rally point or “home” for diverse groups that share similar economic, social, or political concerns. If there is dissention among factions, political party representatives work to find compromise and build coalitions. The more people they can bring together, the more likely it is that their candidates will be elected. One point around which a political party might rally people is the economy. If the economy is good, the incumbent’s party will use it to support re-election; if the economy is bad, the challenger can use that as a point of attack.
Another function of political parties is to simplify the voting process for the electorate. Imagine what would happen if 20 people ran in the same election for President of the
A third function of political parties is to generate excitement about an election. The parties organize rallies, parades, conventions, and speeches to capture voters’ attention and educate them about candidates’ backgrounds and campaign platforms. Generating excitement is also useful for raising campaign funds. Today, political parties hold fundraisers at which people and organizations donate millions of dollars of “soft money,” which is not limited or regulated by the Federal Election Commission, toward campaigns. These organized activities also show the media where to shine their spotlights, giving candidates wider name recognition and spreading campaign messages to people who do not directly participate in the parties’ activities.
Organizing the government is a fourth function of political parties. Although not set up this way in the U.S. Constitution, both the state and federal legislatures are centered on the parties. The reason is that the majority of officeholders are affiliated with a political party that played a role in their election. Strong party affiliations have led to partisanship, which means officeholders base their decisions on the party’s interests.
Partisan politics are also a consideration in the executive and judicial branches of government. For example, when a Supreme Court justice retires, the President will likely appoint a new justice who shares the same party affiliation. Sometimes, however, the President will select one or more opposing party members for the Cabinet as a show of “good faith.”
A fifth function of political parties is accountability—people hold their political parties responsible for making sure officeholders fulfill platform and campaign promises. The electorate judges officeholders’ success by whether the agenda issues have been addressed. Political parties track the success of their own party members in office as well as the failures of officeholders from rival parties. Documenting what the people in office have and have not accomplished gives the parties support for their positions and “ammunition” against opponents in future elections.
Elections and Money
Cost of Elections
Whether a candidate is campaigning for the presidency, the Senate, or for the House of Representatives, running for public office can be costly. It is rare for an individual to run a successful campaign by merely collecting signatures and placing his or her name on a ballot. Candidates who want to inform voters about their platforms must spend money on a campaign.Election costs continually increase due to the amount of time and effort needed for a successful campaign in our progressively high-tech world. These escalating demands result in a greater need for fundraising. The 2000 presidential election cost about $1.5 billion in campaign funds, a significant increase from the 1992 election, which totaled $286 million. In 1992, races for seats in the House of Representatives cost a total of $364 million, but by the year 2000, the cost jumped to $1 billion. Senate races are even more expensive. In 2000, the average successful Senate campaign cost $7 million, while the average House campaign required $800,000.
Elections need ample funding because candidates must build a campaign organization as well as create campaign exposure. Other election campaign costs include legal and accounting fees and interest on loans taken out to sustain the campaign.
Candidates can create exposure for their campaign in several ways. They can travel to meet with voters and interest groups and create materials such as signs, fliers, letters, and media advertisements. Although it is common for candidates to use television and radio commercials in today’s elections, there is little evidence that these advertisements have a strong effect on voters’ opinions of the candidates. However, advertising does increase name and image recognition, which often translates to a better chance of being elected. Candidates also work to receive publicity, or free news coverage, by making newsworthy appearances in their community. For example, candidates may speak to the elderly in a nursing home or make an appearance at a local park to promote their environmental policy.
While it seems logical that there would be a correlation between the amount of money spent on campaigning and winning an election, the connection is tenuous. For example, in presidential contests, the candidate who spends the most does not always win. However, in congressional races, the amount of money spent can increase a candidate’s chance of winning. Studies show that while congressional incumbents have a better chance of winning an election, high-spending incumbents have an even greater chance of winning than those who spend less.
Politicians employ a variety of fundraising tactics to finance their campaigns. Direct mail can be effective if targeted at people with views similar to those of the candidates. Each year direct mail solicitations persuade people to contribute over $1 billion to various politicians. Candidates also hold events such as dinners, speeches, or rallies to gain financial and voting support. Most politicians also seek financial aid from interest groups and Political Action Committees (PACs).
An interest group is an organization of individuals with similar policy goals who enter the political process to influence legislation that affects the organization’s interests. Examples include the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the American Federation of Labor (
There are two types of interest groups: institutional and membership. An institutional interest group is an organization represented in
When interest groups become directly involved in the electoral process by funding campaigns, providing testimony for campaigns, and recruiting members to volunteer for particular candidates, called electioneering, they become Political Action Committees (PAC). PACs have increased in popularity in recent years. There are currently over 4,000 PACs, while in 1974 there were only 608.
The main purpose of a PAC is to raise and distribute funds to advocate the political goals of its members. Research on whether PACs gain a significant return on their political investment has not produced a clear answer. Overall, the public has a negative view of PACs and interest groups. Many feel these organizations are “buying votes” by contributing to specific candidates and have too much influence in
Interest groups claim they are not buying votes, but rather gaining access to the system to achieve a voice in public policy. They contend that they are linkage institutions representing the desires of the population they serve. The National Education Association (NEA) supports candidates who are sympathetic to teachers. The NEA feels that if their candidate is elected, there is a greater chance of positive legislation for teachers.
Interest groups are common in the
Electoral College Notes
The Framers of the Constitution worked diligently to establish an effective system for electing a president and vice president. The members of the Constitutional Convention were reluctant to allow a popular vote because information dissemination, in their time, was very limited. They rejected direct election of the president by Congress because it would give too much power to the federal government. Likewise, they felt that presidential elections held by the various state assemblies would result in each state nominating a ‘‘favorite son’’ and force elections to be decided in the House of Representatives. They eventually arrived at a compromise solution. The Constitution designates that a group of “enlightened and respectable citizens” from each state would assemble to elect the president.
The Framers determined that an Electoral College would elect the president and vice president. It would assemble every four years and would be comprised of representatives from each state. The Framers determined that the number of electors from each state would be equal to the number of senators and representatives from each state. TheDistrict of Columbia
In 48 of the 50 states there is a winner-take-all system that awards all of the state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate that receives the most popular votes. Even in a very close race, the candidate who receives the most popular votes within the state will receive every electoral vote, so up to 49 percent of the votes in a winner-take-all state do not ‘‘count.’’ Technically, voters elect a delegate from the candidate’s political party called an elector, not a candidate, but electors almost always follow the will of the people.
Maine and Nebraska Maine and Nebraska
The electors meet in their respective state capitals approximately six weeks after the popular vote. There they cast their votes for the candidate selected in the general election. The total number of votes is tallied, and a president and vice president are announced. There are 538 electoral votes, so a winning candidate must receive at least 270 votes.California
The election of 2000 highlighted a serious problem with the Electoral College when Al Gore won the popular vote, but George Bush won the electoral vote and was elected president. Many Americans felt that the Electoral College usurped the will of the people. Another criticism of the Electoral College is that large states have too much influence, since they can cast more electoral votes. By winning 11 of the largest states, a candidate would receive 230 of the 270 votes required for election. Small states often feel ignored by candidates since they generally focus their campaigning on larger, more influential states.
Many people argue that the Electoral College system affects voter turnout in states that have a strong Republican or Democrat majority. For example, Republican voters in a staunchly Democratic state might not vote if they feel that their votes will have no effect on the outcome of the election. Another problem is that in some very small states voters have a disproportionately large influence due to the three electoral vote minimum. Any change to the Electoral College would require a constitutional amendment proposed by a two-thirds majority in the Senate and the House of Representatives and ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures or three-fourths of the state amendment conventions.
While some oppose the Electoral College system, it offers many unique benefits, as well. Even in close elections it is relatively easy to determine a winner. Despite the notoriety of the 2000 election, recounts and disputed elections are uncommon. The Electoral College also allows a president to receive a mandate from the people, as every president must receive a majority of electoral votes to be elected. Another advantage of the Electoral College is that it maintains a two-party system. If an election was determined by popular vote, there would likely be several candidates and voters would have a difficult time identifying their preferred candidate. In an election with multiple candidates, the winner would be unlikely to receive a majority of votes.
The Framers determined that an Electoral College would elect the president and vice president. It would assemble every four years and would be comprised of representatives from each state. The Framers determined that the number of electors from each state would be equal to the number of senators and representatives from each state. The
In 48 of the 50 states there is a winner-take-all system that awards all of the state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate that receives the most popular votes. Even in a very close race, the candidate who receives the most popular votes within the state will receive every electoral vote, so up to 49 percent of the votes in a winner-take-all state do not ‘‘count.’’ Technically, voters elect a delegate from the candidate’s political party called an elector, not a candidate, but electors almost always follow the will of the people.
The electors meet in their respective state capitals approximately six weeks after the popular vote. There they cast their votes for the candidate selected in the general election. The total number of votes is tallied, and a president and vice president are announced. There are 538 electoral votes, so a winning candidate must receive at least 270 votes.
The election of 2000 highlighted a serious problem with the Electoral College when Al Gore won the popular vote, but George Bush won the electoral vote and was elected president. Many Americans felt that the Electoral College usurped the will of the people. Another criticism of the Electoral College is that large states have too much influence, since they can cast more electoral votes. By winning 11 of the largest states, a candidate would receive 230 of the 270 votes required for election. Small states often feel ignored by candidates since they generally focus their campaigning on larger, more influential states.
Many people argue that the Electoral College system affects voter turnout in states that have a strong Republican or Democrat majority. For example, Republican voters in a staunchly Democratic state might not vote if they feel that their votes will have no effect on the outcome of the election. Another problem is that in some very small states voters have a disproportionately large influence due to the three electoral vote minimum. Any change to the Electoral College would require a constitutional amendment proposed by a two-thirds majority in the Senate and the House of Representatives and ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures or three-fourths of the state amendment conventions.
While some oppose the Electoral College system, it offers many unique benefits, as well. Even in close elections it is relatively easy to determine a winner. Despite the notoriety of the 2000 election, recounts and disputed elections are uncommon. The Electoral College also allows a president to receive a mandate from the people, as every president must receive a majority of electoral votes to be elected. Another advantage of the Electoral College is that it maintains a two-party system. If an election was determined by popular vote, there would likely be several candidates and voters would have a difficult time identifying their preferred candidate. In an election with multiple candidates, the winner would be unlikely to receive a majority of votes.
Monday 17 October 2011
Study Guide for Unit 2
Things to Know:
Voting Patterns
Ways to get more people to vote
American Values
Gerrymandering
Efficacy
Public Opinion
Political Culture
Polling
Voter turnout
Liberal vs. Conservative
Socialization
527s
Voting rights
http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/a_citizens_guide_to_redistricting/
http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2008G.html
Voting Patterns
Ways to get more people to vote
American Values
Gerrymandering
Efficacy
Public Opinion
Political Culture
Polling
Voter turnout
Liberal vs. Conservative
Socialization
527s
Voting rights
http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/a_citizens_guide_to_redistricting/
http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2008G.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)