It is very peculiar to consider racism is an ideology where humans are separated into various groups in the belief that some people are superior because they belong to a particular ethnic or national group. It could be summarized that racism is the result of having negative judgments, beliefs, and feelings towards certain identifiable groups. Thus, there is a real need of African-American leaders. However, in reality, that is a rare occurrence and the US mayor election in 2002 between Cory Booker and Sharpe James proved this with their racial prejudice that reflected during their election campaign. This occurrence of racial prejudice happened in US mayor election in 2002 between Cory Booker and Sharpe James. A relevant reaction to the documentary movie called “Street Fight” that accounted this election would also be included.
Main body
Sharpe James was the mayor of Newark, New Jersey in 2002. Cory Booker challenged him, in 2002 election. This election was highly controversial and this election was closely documented by a documentary, “Street Fight”, directed by filmmaker Marshall Curry, was screened in 2005 Tribeca Film Festival, and was nominated for Academy Award. (Curry, 2005) The controversy of Cory Booker and Sharpe James mayoral race of 2002 illustrates the actual position of political life of the African-American population. It can be assured that this crisis of leadership appears in both local and national levels. Despite the essence of freedom and opportunity that prevails in the United States, the political development of the African-American population as leadership material id quite uncertain. It has been found in the past that following mayoral position by an African-American candidate tends to result in decline in finance and infrastructure of the region. However, it should be mentioned that the African-American mayors are local heroes and are believed to be instruments of defending the interests of the African-American population. (Cave, 2006).
For a democratic society with its democratic form of government system, it is but an obvious choice to opt for a society that is mostly colorblind. The basis custom of a democratic society is to provide its mass with a structural form that offers equality in terms of justice and social characteristic. It is an unwanted fact but it is also extremely true at the same time that racism is a curse that exists among us whether we like it or not. The presence of racism is well documented in many societal domains including workplace, school, health care, and housing.
Sharpe James could be illustrated as generation of the civil right movement and he demands absolute loyalty and a psyche that tends to me more ‘black vs. white’ rather than a free individual in a free country like Cory Booker. However, both of them are prejudiced on the context of racial injustice. “Despite this, James’ generation is hostile to the idea of sharing power with Booker’s. While the most thuggish elements of hip hop are the currency of popular culture, the real gangsterization of Newark’s political life is on the part of the Sharpe campaign.” (Sekou, 2005).
The documentary “Street Fight” puts an emphasis on this issue of criminalization of politics and political campaigns. It indicates that the old school of African-American leadership should change with time. The problem with racial prejudice in urban African-American population is that there are two types of leaders. One type like Cory Booker is extremely romantic in nature and finds optimism in every aspect of political life and the other type like Sharpe James who considers them to be victimized and thus tend to retaliate. On both the occasions, the individuals are situated far from reality and thus are unable to deal with the present and practical requirements.
Under such parameters both the parties are practically incapable to hold serious and responsible positions such as administrative office of the mayor. These forms of political approaches can easily be termed as immature. No wonder that in view of Osagyefo Uhuru Sekou, it can be stated, “Both Sharpe James and Cory Booker represent different sides of the same impoverished coin.” (Sekou, 2005).
One of the most compelling developments of our age is the recognition of multicultural of multiracial society and how they translate to each and every individual. The challenge is not just in recognizing other races but more importantly the culture and heritage of people must also be recognized. Are people becoming aware and accepting of others? Are people’s view and minds growing broader? Is intolerance being decreased? Are we now on the path of building a society that does not just recognizes cultural and racial diversity but celebrates it? As much as we would like to think that we are accomplishing this, current evidences show that there is still much to do.
Conclusion
It can be stated that the racially prejudiced urban political leadership of the African-American population is fundamentally directionally incorrect rather than erroneous generational approach. It is true that during recent time, it is seen that the fundamentalist conservative approach of African-American population leadership is changing but there are much space to be covered.
References
Cave, Damien; May 4, 2006; “In a Debate of Newark Mayoral Candidates, Some Agreement and a Lot of Discord“; The New York Times.
Curry, Marshall; (2005); Street Fight; Marshall Curry Productions; 2008. Web.
Sekou, Osagyefo Uhuru; 2005; “Beyond the Generation Gap: Reflections on the Crisis in Black Political Leadership”; American Documentary; 2008. Web.
Since the midterm elections which have recently been on the agenda of the United States political life and were promising numerous on-coming changes, it is reasonable to consider the facts which have influenced the result of the elections.
The influence of the Tea Party which was supporting the Republicans throughout the elections caused the victory of the latter and their obtaining the majority in the House of Representatives. There are certain reasons fro such influence of the Tea Party in the American Parliament, which is going to be the issue of the given research work.
However, it cannot be denied that the changes in the mood of the society could be traced and the outcome of the elections could be predicted with more or less strong certainty. The growing influence of the Republicans could not be passed unnoticed, for they were persistent in their attempts to change the existing state of affairs. Amos (2010) claims that
By the end of January 2010, the mood had undergone a complete reversal. It was the liberal/socialist in complete disarray. This happened not because of Republican leadership but, it could be argued, as a direct result of Republican hierarchy being in shambles. The people demanded to be heard. Grassroots organizations, led by the Tea Party patriots, would not be silenced and would not allow politicians, or either party, to diminish our inalienable rights or destroy the Constitution of the United States. (p. 80)
Regarding the growing influence of the Tea Party movement in the United States, the results of the Midterm elections which have been recently held could be predicted with considerable certainty, since the moods in the government showed clearly that the president and the parliament were aimed at restoring their influence and the reinforcement of the economical position of the country in the world market, as well as strengthening the position of the country in the world politics.
To clarify the issues of the political situation in the United States, it must be explained what a Tea Party is. Since hardly anyone can explain the reasons for the political movement better than its representatives, it would be better to address one of the members of the party to have a better understanding of the subject. Amos (2010) explains the ideas and the views of a Tea Party in the following manner:
People who are superficially aware of The Tea Party Patriots, think that we are only “anti-Obama administration”. No one can pretend to speak for all of the numerous Tea Party groups around the nation, let alone our (15 million or so) members. But the following is fundamental to all of us. We believe in fiscal responsibility, limited government, free markets, respect for our Constitution and the Bill of Rights and a government that answers to the people. (81)
Such statement can mean only that the Tea Party aims at changing Barak Obama’s policy according to their own understanding of the home policy. Aiming at changing the current policy pursued by Obama, the new movement proved to be bordering with extremism, which cannot be used as a good mark for the Tea Party movement. However, in spite of the explicit extremism moves which were undertaken by the Tea Party, it still maintains a good reputation with the population of the United States and its authority does not seem to diminish.
Since the conflict in the government of the United States became even more tense and complicated, there was another party created by the conservative part of the American society who were not willing to change the structure of the government so that more than two parties could be represented in the parliament.
However hard the two parties could oppose each other, sooner or later they will have to face the changes which the government is going to adopt. Whenever the Democrats or the Republicans are going to take their toll on the politics of the United States, there is no doubt that the changes applied will be of crucial importance. And it turned out, the population of the state preferred solid and profound position of the Republicans to the half-baked reasoning of the Democrats.
Even with the accusations of racism sounded by Hanks in his project “The Pacific” (Amos 2010, 91), the Tea Party members managed to maintain that same high level of influence on the population and the government, for the Republicans to win the midterm elections. It could have been that without the support of the Tea Party, the Republicans could have lost the elections to the Democrats.
Although the latter did not legitimate the expectations of the parliament and the voters, the population still could not trust the Republicans and their ideas of the policy that should be conducted. The members of the party were enjoying growing popularity with the citizens of the country. The abovementioned changed the political prognoses in favor of the Tea Party and the ideas which it was promoting, thus, making the way for the Republicans to gain the majority in the parliament.
The alternative to the existing foreign and home policy which was spoken about is supposed to come after the midterm elections of 2010. It must be born in mind that the midterm elections should be held to meet the needs which emerge when the new strategy was adopted. Thus, since the USA has been influenced by the unfolding movement of the Tea Party, it was subjected to the necessity to consider the situation from the point of view of the Tea Party and the solutions which it suggests.
Different opinions resulted in parliament split, and the Congress was divided in two opposing parts. The situation could not but have its impact on the Midterm Elections as well, and the considerable strain which had been brewing for several months in the governmental sphere finally erupted with the midterm election results in 2010.
It was assumed before that the midterm elections could result in the non-beneficial way for the United States. The tension which was growing between the opposing forces was supposed to bring the both parties down since the situation came to the boiling point.
The Democrats were highly unlikable to obtain the necessary number of votes to represent the parliament. Their struggle was doomed to fail, even if the Tea Party had never started. Having lost the trust of the voters once, they would not have been able to prove their right and gain the majority of voices to join the Parliament.
The tension between the parties resulted in certain problems in holding the midterm elections 2010. As the President’s party, they will obviously face misunderstanding and will not be considered as the optimal candidates to vote for. It was suggested by Adkins that the midterm elections could be harder to hold than they usually do:
Colorado’s 4th District is surely near the top of the list of districts that Republicans will be seeking to take back in the 2010 midterm elections. Democrats are liable to face a difficult midterm election nationwide, as the president’s party often does, and the district’s conservative stripes will likely make this a difficult district for the Democrats to defend. (106)
The actual result of the midterm elections left much to be desired, since it has shown a sever decline in the economical system of the country and the means of solving economical problems completely out of date and proving to be the worst one throughout the last few decades. (Watts 2010). The decline can be considered the result of the Tea Party influence, which lowered the Democrats’ standing among the voters and led to the crushing defeat of the Democrats in the struggle for the influence in the Parliament.
Unless the Tea Party had not interfered in the elections and the political business, the results of the elections could have been absolutely different. Since the Republicans were not taken as a substitute for the Democrats’ ruling, the outcome of the elections could have been different if the Tea Party had not used its growing authority.
Such sad results seem to bring the USA back to the critical state of economical depression which the country already suffered, and the external economical reasons for the U. S. to come to another structure of economical policy evident yet extremely undesirable. As Hirsch (2009) claims,
Tenth years have the worst record within the Decennial Cycle and 2010 is a midterm election year, which has the second worst record of the 4-year presidential election cycle. (129)
However, there are the assumptions that the situation is gradually improving due to the actions which were undertaken by the government. The report on the midterm elections has also testified it. It cannot be predicted with certainty that the improvements are going to take place in the on-coming year, but there have been sufficient evidences to hope for the changes. This is what Hirsch also predicts, regarding the statistics of the past few years:
However, the 53,8% Dow Jones industrials bear market decline at press time indicates that the piper has been paid. Prospects for a positive 2010, the first positive tenth year since 1980 are improving. (129)
Taking the abovementioned into account, one can claim that the economical situation started to regain stability, owing to the Tea Party and its influence on the political system of the USA. It was claimed that the importance of the decision taken during the midterm elections on November 2, 2010 could not be doubted and that it would mark the course of actions of the economical policy for the next several decades.
With the Tea Party influence, the victory if the Republicans could be predicted easily. Since the course of actions of the parliament from this time on will depend on the policy of the Republicans, the state is not going to emulate the economic models which are suggested by other countries, thus keeping the democracy principles instead of adopting the ones that are foreign to the American traditions and political life.
The new step undertaken by the government will have the effect on the economics without involving the foreign methods to obtain the desirable result. The United States are determined to keep to their line of conduct regardless of the difficulties that they can face.
It must be well noted that the continuous debates which have been held on the topic of either adopting the new model of economical behavior or its rejection did not favor the complicated situation in the government. The supporters of the new ideas presented a well-supported argument against the methods which were applied by the government, and the state was split in two parties, which would not agree upon a compromising decision.
It is necessary to take into consideration that such conflicts have been encountered not once and that it has been not once that an elaborated political strategy was ejected because of the false assumptions and the predictions based on the unverified information.
Thus, it is important to keep in mind that the Federal Government was to face the States’ Rights in a heated debate concerning the nation’s profit and the directions in which the further political steps should be made. With the urge to satisfy the needs of the nation, the Fed was opposing the States’ Rights to eliminate financial instability within the country.
Since both sides were mostly preoccupied with the influence which they had on the nation and the subject of their argument was the level of influence which each of them was supposed to share, it could be easily predicted that such debates would not lead anywhere. Trying to reconcile the opponents, Vile (2010) suggests the following interpretation of the political events which took place:
Many had, of course, left because of business and personal reasons rather than because they disagreed with the way that proceedings were going. Of those who remained, however, Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, and Edmund Rudolph and George Mason of Virginia refused to sign. Their concerns about states’ rights and the absence of a bill of rights helped fuel the debate that followed as citizens decided whether to accept this new character of government. (111)
With such approach, it becomes clear that the debates as for the economical and personal interests bordering with each other had been boiling up for long time before it erupted as the elections of 2010 were held. The role of the governmental influence must not be diminished as well. Such heated were the debates that the result was suffered through a long track of misconception and arguments directed at the existing system of governing the country and managing the parliament affairs.
Thus, the country has already seen the problems concerning misconceptions within the country, which must have influenced the outcome of the elections in 2010. In spite of the fact that the government of the USA knows well the price for the wrong step made in the sphere of politics, the aggravation that might occur in case the USA adopted the policy of another states, the result would have been much more disadvantageous in terms of the international and home policy.
It must be admitted that the decision taken by the government in November, 2010 was predetermined by the circumstances and was aimed at achieving better life standards without sacrificing the national ideas to a dubious economic profit.
Reflecting on the choice of the parliament during the midterm elections and the prevailing influence of the Tea Party whose arguments have been considered as the starting point for the future changes and economical reforms, the concept of the Constitution interpretation must be also taken into consideration.
Since some of the politics tended to adhere to the strict interpretation of the Constitution, while the others tended to consider the Constitutional postulates taking the expansive interpretation as the starting point for their reasoning, the split was inevitable. As Shultz (2005) says,
There are different philosophies and approaches to constitutional interpretation. Otherwise, an individual’s nomination and confirmation to the Supreme Court, especially during the 20th century, has been influenced by and concerned with hi or her judicial philosophy of constitutional interpretation. One philosophy of constitutional interpretation is strict interpretation. A strict interpretation believes in an interpretation of the Constitution in narrow terms. (103)
The split of interests caused stir in the parliament and led to the governmental split, which was not to take place again for the sake of the economical and political stability of the country. Since both parties were preoccupied with the division of powers over the nation, they could not focus on the problem which was crucial for the state and the nation:
Justice Scalia claims that winning the conflict with secularists requires people of faith to reaffirm the religiosity that is at the soul of the Constitution.
Victory also requires people of faith promoting a strict interpretation of the Constitution, where we would all have to accept, as Justice Scalia writes in Herrera v Collins (1993) that “there is no basis in text, tradition or even in contemporary practice for finding in the Constitution a right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after conviction”” (Rodriguez 2010, 98)
Thus, the supporters of the strict reading of Constitution agreed upon the fact that, in order to avoid any misinterpretations of the Constitution, its interpretation should be strict and not be subdued to any subjective evaluations. The point on which the supporters of the strict reading of the Constitution elaborated was dictated by the desire to make the state economical and political system stronger and less influenced by the outer negative factors.
However, there were also the people who preferred another point of view on the given problem and could not agree upon the strict reading of the Constitution. The advocates of the expansive interpretation of the Constitution argued upon the fact that the law must be turned into the solid piece of justice which their opponents were aiming to make it.
On the contrary, the advocates of the extensive interpretation suggested that the Constitution must be flexible so that it could meet the needs of every single citizen of the United States. Employed by Brennan, expansive interpretation of the Constitution mean that the latter becomes “a tool for advancing civil rights and social justice” (Shultz 2005, 53).
The last point from which the Tea Party and the Midterm elections are to be viewed from is the opposition of the weak and the strong federation government, which triggered the appearance of the strict interpretation of the Constitution described above.
In the times when the government could not suggest strong support for the state and the security of the nation, the strict interpretation of the Constitution would not allow the state to collapse, keeping it together. This situation has been described by numerous authors, and has left a significant trace in the history of the United States:
The idea that the Constitution should be supreme in certain matters stemmed from widespread dissatisfaction with the weak federal government that has existed previously under the articles of Confederation adopted in 1781. (Schmidt 2009, 530).
It must be also kept in mind that the Federal government could not perform all its duties because of the fact that it was shaken to the core with the crisis which was reigning in those times. The very idea that the situation can occur once again must have made the necessary impression on the current American government so that it could allow the Republican Party to be elected and their principles of conducting the political matters should come into force.
Although the crisis has been prevented for so many times and the danger was avoided, the American government still remembers the days when the country was extremely weak and could not engage itself either in politics, or economics. The abovementioned meant that the country was lying in the ashes, and only miracle could save it from complete collapse. Since such miracle occurred, nowadays the governmental bodies are doing their best to prevent such things from happening.
Barak Obama and the Cabinet are claiming that they are going to undertake every measure possible in order to take the country to the top of the political and economical flourishing.
Still the policy of Obama needs certain corrections, which the new Cabinet is going to provide soon. Since the president and the parliament display an explicit divergence of opinions, three must be a long way ahead for the home and foreign policy improvement, as well as the solution of the current economical problems. It must be well understood that the new laws and amendments to the Constitution are supposed to be aimed at improvements, for the country needs them now as much as ever.
With regard to the current to the existing government it should be mentioned that they have already undertaken the steps to take the country to the top of the economic area. The midterm elections which have been recently carried out will help the country head for the changes which will improve the existing state of affairs. As Watts (2010) said,
Midterm elections offer a chance to assess the mood of the country and the president’s chance of re-election. They can inspire or demoralize the person in the White House or his would-be challengers. They can be particularly significant during some presidencies. In November 1994, the Republican scored a convincing victory, capturing both chambers of Congress for the first time of so many years and thereby dealing a blow to the future legislative and other prospects of the Clinton presidency. (195)
Thus, it would be logical to suggest that the new state of affairs which the midterm elections have set will result in numerous benefits for the country. The improvements are bound to happen soon, since the changes which the Republicans will bring are going to be centered on enhancing the state’s security and economic stability.
Although it is impossible to predict for sure now what processes exactly the new policy will trigger, it can be supposed with sufficient certainty that the new government will focus on the national production and will contribute to the development of the country’s economics in order to represent the products in the world market.
Otherwise, there will be very little chance for the USA to remain the world leader in economics and trade. Therefore, it is very important for the United States to maintain the process of the economical growth and avoid being misled on the way to the economic hegemony.
Reference List
Adkins, Randall E. 2010. Cases in Congressional Campaigns: Incumbents Playing Defense. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis
Randall Adkins, a man of great influence in the political and literature circles in the modern world, suggests in his book his own version of what has happened during the midterm elections in 2008 and provides a deep analysis of the current political situation in the United States.
He also makes a prognosis concerning the winner of the on-coming elections and gives a deep insight on the main problems which the government may face afterwards. His idea of the midterm elections is that they should be aimed at improving the current political and economical situation, providing stability in the abovementioned spheres and creating the grounds for the future improvements made for the benefit of the country and its citizens.
Amos A. G. 2010. American Revolution 2010: A Tea Party: Patriot’s Call to Arms. Indianapolis, IN: Dog Ear Publishing.
Amos suggests a deep analysis of the movement called A Tea Party and considers its further influence on the country and the political stability. He explains where the given movement roots from and clarifies the multiple issues which the Tea Party covers. In spite of the controversy of the topic, Amos manages to give a precise definition of what the Tea party is and what has caused it to emerge.
The author describes the main events which the Tea Party has triggered and the steps that have been undertaken by its representatives to make changes to the United States and the political structure of the USA. Explaining the factors which underlie the movement, Amos also provides a fair evaluation of the benefits which the party has brought to the country as well as the losses which the party has caused. A deep and thoughtful analysis adds to the overall impression of the book.
Court, Jamie. 2010 The Progressive’s Guide to Raise Hell: How to Win Grassroots Campaign, Pass Ballot Box Laws, and Get the Change We Voted for – a Direct Democracy Toolkit. White River Jct., VT: Chelsea Green Publishing.
A prolific writer and a perfect analytical thinker, Jamie Court helps the readers to understand the processes that have been going on for a long time in the sphere of politics, namely among the Democrats. With genuine humor and sincerity the author explores the difficult relationships within the parliament and among its members, helping the audience to see what is really going on in the sphere of political life of the United States government.
Instead of presenting the facts in a dry and boring way, Court makes his audience feel the very essence of the political atmosphere in the U. S. government. The writer depicts the political structure of the country in the most open and clear way, making people feel as if they had seen the processes described on their own.
Hirsch, Jeffrey A., Hirsch, Yale. 2009. Stock Trader’s Almanac 2010. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
In spite of the fact that statistics is one of the spheres where most people start feeling uncertain and unsure, Jeffrey Hirsch provides the statistic data in the most precise way. He observes the events in the political life of the United States to make the rest of the people, who do not belong to the governmental structures, see the reports about the most important political and economical events in the country.
The graphs which he draws and the schemes depicting the increase or the decrease in a particular sphere of political life of the American society, he does the work of an utter importance. Thus, the statistic records which he has provided his audience with as for the past decade were of extreme importance for the given work, for they made it possible to observe the situation in the economical and political life in the USA with great accuracy. The results of the midterm elections in 2008 and the prognoses for the 2010 were deep and thorough.
Rodriguez, A. 2010. Revisioning Diversity in Communication Studies. Leicester: Troubadour Publishing.
A man of much influence in the sphere of political life, Rodriguez helps the readers to clarify several issues concerning the different interpretations of the Constitution which have caused a lot of quarrels in the Parliament.
The writer gives a deep and precise analysis of the events which have triggered the split in the Parliament and the reasons for a different understanding of the Constitution by some of the members of parliament. It is impossible to say that Rodriguez supports any of the parties. He gives a precise description of each of the parties, as well as provides the reasons for them to adhere t this very line of conduct, yet the writer stays cool-blooded and does not tend to support any of the opinions suggested.
Schmidt, S. W., et al. 2009. American Government and Politics Today. – Texas Edition, 2009-2010. Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.
A prolific modern writer, Schmidt has created a work which can be counted for something that the mankind will value for years. A just and fair analysis of the current political situation in the United States is what the author performs in his book.
Giving precise characteristics of each and every event concerning the on-coming midterm elections, the author gives a precise characteristic of the processes in the parliament of the United States, as well as the relationship between the members of the parties and the infrastructure of the U. S. government in general.
Shedding the light on the most recent events in the political life of the USA, he makes ordinary people see what is going on in the governmental structure and understand the reasons, the prerequisites and the probable results of the events in question.
Shultz, D. 2005. Encyclopedia of the Supreme Court. New York, NY: Infobase Publishing.
Shultz is a person who can provide the population with the most precise and certain data on the Supreme Court of the United States. Every single bit of information about the above-mentioned establishment will not pass unnoticed by this encyclopedia. Shultz has gathered all the events which have occurred so far in the Supreme Court and has suggested the work of his to the audience.
He has unlocked a lot of secrets of the processes which happen in the Supreme Court and has explained the principles on which the Court’s work is based. Making the situation even clearer, the author suggests a look on the Constitution and the way it has been considered through the history of the Supreme Court. Clarifying some issues on the split in reading the ideas of the Constitution, he makes the readers see what has been untold for several years running.
Vile, J. R. 2010. A Companion to the United States Constitution and Its Amendments. Santa-Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.
Vile is the person who can tell literally everything concerning the USA Constitution and its interpretations through years. He explains numerous things which have been unknown by the ordinary people for quite long and explains the clue issues about the amendments which have been applied to the Constitution.
Also considering the results which have been triggered by the above-mentioned amendments, Vile delivers to the readers completely new information and helps them to see the answers to the multiple questions which may arise as they get acquainted with the ideas of the amendments which have been undertaken by the government. What Vile does is providing the link between the government and the citizens of the country, for the latter to be aware of the political changes that occur in the country.
Watts, Duncan. 2010. Dictionary of American Government and Politics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
A great politician and a great writer, Watts has suggested a new book to his audience. With his book, Watts has created the missing link between the government and the population, which is supposed to help to solve several problems which have been brewing for long time between the two. Watts has created a sphere of human’s life where people and the government can find a common language.
He has explored the issue of the midterm elections and has suggested several predictions on what will follow the midterm elections in 2010, as well as has suggested his ideas about who is going to win in the elections. A genuine style of his allows Watts to write about politics in such a way so that every single person could be interested in the suggested object for discussion. His book has helped to discover several important features of the election process in the USA.
The federal elections of Australia were held on Saturday 21st august 2010 for the 43rd parliament of Australia. Labor party and the coalition of liberals/national each won 72 seats, thus each falling below the 76 majority required for election victory.
This resulted in a hung parliament for the first time since the 1940’s election when these two parties started dominating Australia politics.
Three independent M.P’s and national party of Western Australia M.P declared support for the labor party meaning labor party formed a minority government (Radio Australia 1). This essay looks at how the 2010 Australian federal elections have demonstrated that the two party systems are no longer relevant in the society.
Definition
A political party is an organization of people who share the same ideas of governance and whose members are committed to party goals. They also get candidates elected to office and have laws passed to aid in party management.
There are three party systems which end up making one party state, two party states and multiparty states. Australia is a two party state system as two parties have been exchanging power since 1949. They are the liberal and labor parties though there are minority parties as well (George Standards Organization 1).
Democracy is a political system operating under the principles of constitutionalism, representative government, majority rule, civilian rule and minority rights (Miami Dade College 1).
Two party systems is an electoral arrangement in which two or more parties compete for the support of the electorate and control of the government. Each party has a chance of winning the election. Minority parties in a two party system do not have a chance of winning the election.
A two party contest is affected by realignments and to some extend the minority parties affect the two major parties by leading to a scenario as was witnessed in Australia (PSCI 1).
Political institutions are concerned with the preservation of social order within a specified authority. Examples of political institutions include political parties, trade unions, lobby groups and special interest groups. These groups constitute and define the layers of the political process together with their interdependences (University of Munchen 1).
History
The two party systems started back in 1891 in Australia with the rise of the labor party as a political party in 1909 after the protectionist and free traders joined hands to form the party. In 1946, the modern liberal party was formed by Sir Robert Menzies.
From then it has been about two political parties competing for public votes during elections over the years. The labor party is oldest party in Australia today and is a social democratic party that believes in government as a positive force in the community that is free to intervene in the operation of the economy to improve outcomes.
The labor party also believes that all members of society should have access to quality and affordable housing as well as education and houses (Australia History 1).
The liberal party believe advocates for sustainable equality, affirmative action, social and cultural rights, believes in government’s interference in individual’s lives to ensure justice is achieved. They favor interventionist, regulated market economic policies (Australia Politics 1).
Irrelevance of two party systems to our society today
The two parties have divided the Australian society into two fragments. The two parties have left the society with the choice of embracing either of the ideologies of the parties making it a bit unfair as there are no varieties of ideologies apart from the two ideologies from the labor and liberal parties.
From 1949 to date, the two major political parties have being playing an endless game of tug-of-war. The major reason for the constant switching back and forth between these two parties appears to be that the country has different needs at different times and voters tend to alternate these two parties according to their needs (Social Welfare 1).
The switching of needs is not considered a good idea as those ideas which will act as the opportunity cost will still be needed to be implemented in the society.
It has been argued out that the ideologies presented by both parties are significant for the growth of the Australian society and thus the two party systems which dictates that one system has to be adopted does not actually enhance justice by the fact that it denies the society one of the choices that they need (Conservative 1).
Liberals believe in sustainable equality, affirmative action, social and cultural rights; they also believe in government’s interference in individual’s lives to ensure justice is achieved. They favor interventionist and regulated market economic policies (Liberal Party of Australia 1).
The labor party believes in formal equality and that everyone should be treated equally under the law and government. They also believe in laissez –faire market economic policies and individuals controlling their own lives (Martin 1).
Concerning the politics in Australia, it has been argued that:
There can be no argument about the ubiquity, pervasiveness and centrality of party in Australia. The forms, processes and content of politics– executive, parliament, pressure groups, bureaucracy, issues and policymaking – are imbued with the influence of party, party rhetoric, party policy, and party doctrine.
Government is party government. Elections are essentially party contests and the mechanics of electoral systems are determined by party policies and party advantages. Legislatures are party chambers. Legislators are overwhelmingly party members. The majority of electors follow their party identification. Politics in Australia, almost entirely, are party politics. (Marsh 1)
The two party systems were based on electoral and organizational foundations. It is where activists and interest groups were brought together through party forums. Activists and special interest groups were allowed into party conferences and committees to influence formation of strategic political agenda.
Actually the parties through the party brands gave enough cues for the formation of opinion by most electors on most issues. This led to strategic policy developments which were internalized within the two major parties.
Today, these developments that greatly shaped the strong foundational features of the bi-party system dominance have been undermined and in some instances left out completely (Rush 1).
The Australian society is growing in diversity shown by the proliferation of interest groups and social movements. These new groups of social movements show citizen identities’ in a new diversity not experienced before.
These groups are not equal in terms of size, political skills, budgets, organizational sophistication and campaigning capacities. These groups are durable and they represent and sustain an interest for a long time seeking to persuade the undecided.
These groups of organizations fill the void between the two political parties and the community. Most of these new groups advocate either for new issues or are defenders of traditional approaches like the anti-abortion and anti-euthanasia groups.
Hence, party activists nowadays don’t have strong allegiance to one or other party and the way issues are introduced in the national stage has shifted. Today party forums are no longer the principal ground for activists. Party’s internal process no longer provides the means for acceptability of proposals or for seeding opinion formation (Marsh 1).
The two party systems tend to distort national capabilities to mostly inform the public on long term issues. There are three different restraints that work towards derailing an informed discussion on long term issues.
They arise from the dynamics of the electoral contest between the two parties, second is the way the formal system distributes responsibilities of dealing with long term issues and lastly information available to guide public opinion about policy needs and priorities (Marsh 1).
The two party systems has brought in one major deficiency in the form of fake enmity where the government declares a contentious issue to be white and public opinion is mostly divided or uncertain; the likely outcome is that the opposition will declare it to be black.
As in early times, if the opposition was the government today, they would have supported a similar approach (March 1).
What happens is that when public opinion is divided, the opposition tends to see this as a chance to gain from the public by going the popular way by championing contrasting views even if what they are championing for is not all that good for the public; all they care for is political impact (Australia Politics 1).
Today there is an “overlap in and convergence between the agendas of political parties and the initiative in promoting agendas is shared with other organizations. Issues only come to the arena after the government has decided what to do which encourages posturing and attention to electoral advantage” (Australia Politics 1).
This leads to the two major political parties creating differences even when they do not exist hence these two major parties make issues that they know will shift debate away from matters that lack national importance (Australia Politics 1).
The two party competition systems has also led to the inability to have public conversation and debates about long term issues mostly caused by organizational features of the formal making structure (Theodore and Romance 20).
This is caused by an executive overload where a small number of people determine what issues will have standing on the formal political agenda. The leaders involved in setting the agenda include the prime minister, senior ministers and heads of major coordinating departments.
Their work involves day to day running of the country and ministerial work plus running the departments and yet they control the recognition and management of strategic issues which later translates to a weak capacity of the system to process issues mostly in a strategic phase (March 1).
The second deficiency of the two party systems lies in lack of access for interests groups and social movements to engage the attention of the formal system.
These groups do have access and means to bring out and argue their issues but they face two problems (Disch 23). The first problem arises when they are arguing their case one-on-one basis and second is when such access is highly imbalanced.
A good illustration is where regular access is given to the chief executive officers of Australian banks having access to the federal treasurer; this access is not granted to consumer organizations or the unions. The other problem arises where groups advocating a particular course of action have no venue where their views can be tested against those of others.
This leads to sustained lobbying campaigns to develop public pressure as their views are not heard by the major parties (Marsh 1).
When there is a disconnect between the two political parties, a challenge arises in the form of focusing on specific party disagreements which leads to lack of focus on important national issues and long term issues: “the corrupt farce that is our two-party system should be dismantled; parties give us temptations to attack opponents, become demagogues, and garner followers, distracting us from seeking the true good of the country” (Conservative 1).
The two-party setup in Australia has divided the nation among two lines. Having names and labels for different political persuasions can be helpful, but they have too often led to pigeonholing and name-calling which hampers a free exchange of ideas.
“Liberal and labor, conservative and liberal, right and left” (Conservative 1) have degenerated into terms used to ostracize and vilify the opposition and to stifle discussion of topics deemed politically incorrect.
Conclusion
The two parties system is comprised and does not offer the best choice for the public. It has been seen that this system offers a nation two choices to choose from. In such kind of a situation, the public has to forgo one of the options which might not necessarily be wrong.
There is a need for the system to be changed as the two parties system does not seem to fully address the issues affecting a nation. The issue of the party having equally votes after elections have been carried out also matters and such a tie is not likely to happen in case of a single party system or a multi-party system.
Works Cited
Australian History. Australian History: Political History. Australian History. Web.
Australian Politics. Federal Elctions. Australia Politics, 2011. Web. https://australianpolitics.com/ Conservative. Conservative Intellectual, 2011. Political Cortex, 2007. Web.
Disch, Lisa. The tyranny of the two-party system. New York: Prentice Hall, 2002. Print.
Election years, almost all over the world, bring in spectacular shows or drama that either leaves the voters enthralled or offended. At other levels serious, campaign strategies bring down a whole party or an individual and in the most extreme levels, and civil wars arise. This is true for developed or developing worlds depending on the context of choice and the level of political maturity.
Many a number of candidates have used the elections campaigns seasons to swiftly place themselves at the front, ending up at the highest or desired offices while others have make life time mistakes that extend to kill even their political careers. In America Sara Palin, never made it to her desired position, and eventually fell out with the American voters due to some mistakes out of her own authoring; as well as from her running mate, John McCain.
These situations and events still prevent the former Governor of Alaska the needed grip to turn votes into her basket in this year’s elections. These moves have been repeated by her new rival Michele Bachmann who the writer of this article seeks to make the subject of concern.
The goal of this work is to discredit Michele Bachmann moves in signing a pact which the writer refers to as controversial. It focuses on anti-gay, anti-abortion and anti-pornography issues. The aim of the author is to let the reader identify Michelle Bachmann’s case cannot be expected to go far with such mistakes; and therefore, her rise will only be just another mistake as done in previous examples in the conservative party.
In this article the author attacks the source of the pact to underscore the seriousness of such heavy prices people must pay in political goofs. He has done this using rhetorical techniques of which this paper will analysis their effectiveness upon the intended goal of this article, Michele Bachmann, signs anti-gay pact that says times were better for black kids during slavery.
On the other hand, this article indirectly looks at the question of racism innuendos raised at such seasons. The article largely attacks the main point in a pact from a group known as the Family Leader, which recalls the days of slavery. In this move, the writer points to the audience, as the readers, that politicians like Michele Bachmann are appealing to the voters who are racists.
By juxtaposing Obama’s administration with the slavery period, the reader cannot help to feel that racism is a scorecard. However, probably the most intended audience of this article is the African American person, to vote against such figures with racists’ sentiments. Again, this article may be directed to the normal American citizen who believes in change and uses ideas and development records to score and rate a candidate.
In this article, concerning Michelle Bachmann, the writer has used diction where words like ‘controversial’ and ‘curious’ in the first paragraph as well as ‘strange’ help to allude on the attitude he has on the Pact and its origin. He dismisses the pact extensively using a didactic tone that distances him from Michelle and Bob Vaander Plats.
This is well exemplified by his address to Bob as the man who ran for Governor of Iowa but failed on three attempts to get secure a place in the public offices he vied for. It is worth noting from this perspective that the tongue is in the cheek towards Plaats.
On this same breath, the writer by using counterpoints underscores that Bob’s endorsement by known legendries, like Chuck Norris does not guarantee a bill of passage to the public office. It is ironical through the imagery of thumbs down that Bob thinks highly of himself as kingmaker. Campaign seasons are really of turns and events.
On the next level he uses pathetic appeal concerning the originator of the fact Pact. He casts him as a man who has been on the extreme by issuing outrageous statements and faked analogies of homosexuals and smoking through the technique of narration.
The reader’s feeling of disappointment with Bob is appealed for, and thus convinced that even on this occasion he cannot be left to guide or advice figures we expect to be presidents. In the net effect the reader is invited secretly to judge Michele Bachmann, on her views and relations to such notions! This is an effective technique that the writer has used to show that probably Michele is going nowhere.
He uses the technique of ethos where he appeals to ethics by quoting a respected black political writer, Cherly Contee. In this technique he wishes to introduce the superiority of authority that he is reading from the same page as Contee and thus he places himself high.
On the other hand, he may also appeal to ethics by introducing an authority like Contee in order to score a point that, he is on a middle ground and others including the reader must see these mistakes. If he intends the later, then he is not effective since this may seem ironical from his title and his attack on Bob Plaats. This reinforces the opinion of thesis of this paper concerning racism.
In his appeal for logos to the reader, he states clearly that Michele Bachmann is not a novice to matters relating to racism, anti-gay, anti-abortion or even anti-pornography. Michele’s husband has been an opponent of such views and thus by extension his wife understands the complexity and impact of such. This lets the reader know that it is a clear case of choice and search for new controversy as a move to turn attention.
To make this more effective, he appeals for reasoning and he scores home by mentioning the Utah Governor as one who cannot join the pact of the social conservatives. He thus makes the reader rationalize that if the like of Governor Huntsman and a representative like Ron Paul cannot join such a cause then, Michele is too much flawed. By pitting these public figures against Michele, the reader is appealed to logically, that Huntsman and others are better and enjoy success rates in their work without such vendettas.
The writer has effectively pitched in the camp ‘no’ by letting the audience analyze Michele Bachmann and her group the Family leader. By subtly using description, narration as well as comparison, he brings in the point of racism without offending the African American voters, and thus successfully attacks candidate Bachmann strategies as well as her perceptions of race. This effectively analyzes the options that the voter has when the D-day comes late in the year. This illustrates that Malcolm is an expert political commentary as his records reveal.
The tone of this article assumes an outrage voice that depicts the writer as one who is admonishing candidates like Michele against racism. In addition, the transition of the story through its coherence, and explanations can also be seen to assume a tone humor to political stunts and efforts characterized by the span of election year’s candidates and chief campaigners. In this respect, he is able to convince the audience about his thesis.
I take that Michele needs to rethink her position and stand when dealing with the American voter judging by history. Choosing the road to racism is a ‘sinful’ attempt if I quote her husband, Marcus and she will be judged harshly when racial free, candidates beat her ten to naught (Malcolm, para. 10). The author choice of this method clearly represents that Michele’s star would take the same route that of Sara Palin and with no apologies to make or without being remorseful that she is on the path to failure.
The media has become one of the most used tools of influence in many democratic processes to inspire the public and dictate the behavior of candidates and voters.
Studies indicate that the media has been a reliable source of information that has provided citizens with information they require in order to make independent and well informed decisions especially on matters of political democracy and choice of leadership.
However Kramer points out that in the 2008 general election campaigns for presidential and primary nominations positions in the United States of America proved that the media today has shifted from being mere custodian of facts they were once known to be, to purveyors of misinformation and unbalanced media coverage (208).
As this paper examines, the media did not just heighten campaign knowledge among the American public. It also played a major role in influencing the outcome of the United States general elections in 2008. It is on this front that this paper intrinsically evaluates the United States 2008 election campaigns, analyses the candidates’ use of media during the campaign processes and the role of media in influencing election results.
The media and the US presidential candidates in 2008
Bignon and Miscio indicate that the 2008 presidential general elections saw significant criticisms leveled against the media for their predisposition in presidential and primary candidates’ coverage (385). An example of criticism was that which was leveled against the NBC News by Tim Russert in which the questions that Obama and Hilary were asked were disproportionate in the sense that Hilary, the then democratic presidential contender received very tough questions while Obama’s questions were simpler.
Some of the harassing questions during that news interview included those asking Hilary to provide the name of the newly elected Russian president, and whether she supported the move to have illegal immigrants given driver’s license. As a matter of fact, this was seemingly an open bias against the female candidate. Worse still, it may have portrayed a negative image of Hillary as a leader who is not sharp enough in terms of the on-going global politics.
Reports from Pew Research Centre in US provide an in-depth profile on the role of media influence and indicate that during the 2008 presidential campaigns, many journalists and media outlets were bent on seeing that Barrack Obama won the election (Robbins 52).
Certain opinion polls also indicate that Obama had a strong support of about 70% registered voters compared to John McCain’s 9% (Dubriwny 507). Similar reports analyzing media influence pilloried on the role of media in 2008, and posit that media coverage in terms of news was unfair since its coverage for McCain was 30% while that for Obama was 67% (Dubriwny 507).
Figure 1: Figure showing media coverage for different candidates. Source: An FAQ for the 2008 US Presidential Election.
Media Coverage of female candidates
Evidences of sexism and gender bias in media coverage of the 2008 presidential media coverage
The 2008 general elections in the US was marked by massive sexism and gender bias for female contestants at both primary and presidential levels. Of major importance were Sarah Palin and Hilary Clinton who were massively impacted on by apparent double standards measures in media coverage.
Most of the statements and questions they raised and which deserved coverage did not receive equal coverage as that of their fellow male candidates. Bignon and Miscio note that this immensely reflected the perception that the media and a section of individuals in the society had on the female gender (387). Indeed, had the media been fair and balanced in their coverage of both male and female gender campaigns, the female candidates would have garnered substantial votes.
Sexism and gender discrimination in Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton’s campaigns
In his publication, Kramer points out that gender discrimination and sexism on Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton’s campaigns by the media began taking effect especially for Palin when announcements came that she would be the vice president to John McCain, and would be running on a presidential ticket as the first republican female (208).
What followed her selection as a running mate were brand naming reports from media outlets calling her ‘former beauty queen’ seeking candidacy (Robbins 53). Well, while one might not feel the impact of the labels given to her, the truth of the matter was that Palin was just more than a beauty queen. She was and still is a competent woman who had rights to compete fairly with other candidates and who possessed unique leadership skills.
Figure 2: Figure showing media coverage for candidates. Source: Norvig. Trends.
Certain critiques of conventions indicate that the media represented Hilary Clinton as a woman who did not carry some weight in politics citing that she was going for leadership position to represent herself. In disagreement with the position the media took, it is imperative to point out that by discriminating against these women, the media undermined the important ideals of feminism and sent forth resilient and piquant messages through their actions that women could not take part in male dominated politics.
Denying women candidates equal media coverage was moronic and equaled to telling all women in the US that they do not deserve to vote. Analysts indicate that media sexism was heightened against both Hilary and Palin’s 2008 campaign through media double standards in coverage (Robbins 50). They were given little time for debates and most issues that they raised were not adequately reported as compared to those of their opponents.
Figure 3: A table showing media coverage for candidate debates.
Besides, Ross explains that McCain strategy sought to reach out to women by selecting Sarah Palin as his running mate (180). This strategy was deemed to fill the gap left by the democrats’ choice of the seemingly ‘unpopular’ Obama as opposed to Hilary Clinton who was the expectations of many. However, Palin became a center of attacks by major celebrities, media and even youths who were fast becoming polarized towards Obama wave.
Media used to present candidates to voters
Television use
Babad and Peer refer to TV as the best interface that was used in the 2008 general elections as it linked the public with their candidates (57). Besides, candidates used the television to present their views and ideas to the public. It equally gave them the necessary high profile analysis of their agendas and progress as the voting day drew nearer. It is this popularity that that saw the use of media such as newspapers decline as a persuasive tool.
However, unlike other previous campaigns, the 2008 campaigns saw great media bias in television coverage of candidates, and which influenced voters to vote for particular candidates. Even though presidential candidates massively used TV media to carry out their campaigns and debate on issues, their coverage was disproportionate and cases of sexism and discrimination against women candidates were rampant.
Figure 4: Presidential candidates’ debate and their viewers.
Use of newspapers
Ross argues that though newspapers use as a medium for presenting the candidates has declined over time, it remained a key source of gathering conclusive analysis of the 2008 candidates and their diverse policies (180). It played an effective role especially for the older conservative generations as opposed to the youths who were more to the television and internet.
However, there were allegations that newspapers published reports that potentially biased and which to certain degrees influenced voters to vote for candidates (Robbins 54). Of importance were endorsements from right leaning newspapers for republican candidates and left-leaning newspapers for democratic candidates.
Figure 5: A graph representing newspaper endorsements for candidates. Source: Political Newspaper Endorsements: History and Outcome.
Bignon and Miscio point out that in the American history, newspaper endorsement for presidential and primary candidates has been commonplace for more than a century and has greatly influenced election outcomes (389). Until 2008, overwhelming support and endorsements from newspaper editorial pages favored almost all republican presidenltial candidates with a few balancing out to reach out for that democrats candidates.
Reports indicate that republicans enjoyed newspaper endorsements of up to 84% from 1972-88 with extreem instances being 90% when Richard Nixon won against Senator George McGovern (Dubriwny 507). Bill Clointon also received editorial nods in 1992 as a democrat. In 2008, editirorial support for Obama was higher than that for the republicans and played a major role in influencing the outcomes.
Figure 6: A graph representing percentage endorsement of republican and democratic candidates. Source: Political Newspaper Endorsements: History and Outcome.
Though the Obama’s landslide win of the 2008 election has been interpreted differently by analysts, there is seen to be concurrence in certain aspects. One such facet as Kramer credits is the high level of energized media involvement that was used to reach more people in all states (208).
In concurrence with Kramer’s argument, Babad and Peer explain that Obama managed to maintain a solid touch with youths who form the majority in the nation through modern technology and great media coverage co pared to that of the opposing candidate (57). Besides, he increased his spending on television adverts and raising personnel to link millions through phone messaging, social networking and blogging.
Conclusions
It is from the above discussion that this paper concludes by supporting the thesis statement, ‘The media has become one of the most used tools of influence in many democratic processes to inspire the public and dictate the behavior of candidates and voters.’ The year 2008 campaigns presented a major turning point in the US history by factoring strongly on the need for effective media influence between candidates and their voters.
It can be said, that the key reason for the presidential and primary candidates successes was to a certain degree media influence which not only managed to cover their races as libertarian factors, but effectively brought out their policies, created a space for every one, solidified identity won the loyalty of voters for democrats as well as republicans.
Being the new media culture, it is important to point out that future candidates should therefore use the media as the main campaign tool in anchoring their support at the grassroots and national levels.
Works Cited
Babad, Elisha & Peer, Eyal. “Media bias in interviewers’ nonverbal behavior: potential remedies, attitude similarity and meta-analysis”. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior,34.1 (2010): 57. Print.
Bignon, Vincent & Miscio, Antonio. “Media bias in financial newspapers: evidence from early twentieth-century France”. European Review of Economic History, 14.3 (2010): 383-432. Print.
Dubriwny, Tasha. “Women for president: media bias in eight campaigns”. Rhetoric & Public Affairs: special issue on Lincoln’s rhetorical worlds13.3 (2010): 507-510. Print.
Kramer, Michael. Electing the president 2008: the insiders’ view. Presidential Studies Quarterly,41.1 (2011): 207-209. Print.
Robbins, James. An old, old story: misreading tet, again. World Affairs,173.3 (2010): 49-58. Print.
Ross, Felecia. “Media bias, perspective, and state repression: The Black Panther Party”. Journalism History,36.3 (2010): 180-181. Print.
Elections Canada warned the public not to trust any calls that claimed change of polling stations. The announcement was made on2nd May, 2011 by the election agency which went further to inform the public that the automated calls were not made by the agency.
The robocalls which mainly targeted the Liberal and NDP supporters gave misleading information to the public. The pranks and harassing calls asked voters to vote in other polling stations, claiming they were being made on behalf of a candidate.
Among the first people to report the prank calls to Elections Canada was Frank Valeriote, a Liberal candidate in Guelph, Ontario. The robocalls were common in Guelph and Thunder Bay where the people received automated calls or live calls with misleading and mischievous information.
Election Canada has evidence that the calls were from a number in Quebec which is no longer in use. The number is registered under a restaurant name in Guelph-Pierre Poutine. Further investigations indicate that the number was initially used to contact Racknine Inc.
Robocalls are legitimate methods of running campaigns in several countries including the USA. The robocalls are automated calls that help a candidate campaign by giving messages about the campaign and information that is relevant to the voter. However, if the service is used to give false and misleading information then it is declared illegal.
The conservatives agree that prank calls were made in Guelph, but the party did not have any role to play in the matter. On the other hand, the Liberal party and NDP believe that the ruling party may have used the robocalls to disrupt and mislead voters.
Even though, there is evidence that misleading and harassing calls were made to the public, there isn’t a clear indication of the effects. The strategies and tricks did not have a lot of influence on the 2011 election results because voter turnout was higher than the 2008 elections.
The ruling party i.e. the conservatives are not treating the issue as a matter of national interest instead they termed it as a lot of noise from the opposition. The conservatives choose to blame the opposition and Elections Canada. However, the ruling party should have involved itself actively to find the source and solution of the problem. In so doing, they would have convinced the public that they are interested in solving the issue. Before the issue is solved the conservatives do not have full consent of Canadian voters.
The Liberal and NDP may be blowing the matter out of context. Though there may be some truth in the issue, the rate at which people are reporting fraudulent calls may weaken the issue. Some people view the increase of reports as mischievous and exaggerated.
Elections Canada the agency with the responsibility of solving the issue is not reporting the process and how far the investigation has gone. The complaints submitted to the agency have not been investigated. No one is sure if Elections Canada has the capability and resources to resolve this issue. When Elections Canada offers the results of the investigation then the public will be satisfied with the elections results of 2011.
Racknine Inc. has offered to cooperate with Elections Canada in investigating the issue. This is because some parties had tried to disrupt elections using their service. With witnesses from Responsive Marketing Group inc. Elections Canada should collect all the necessary information from these groups to find the main culprits, and the reasons for their actions. Elections Canada and RCMP should work together to reach the bottom of this issue.
The conservatives cannot fully govern with the Canadians’ sanction if this issue is not resolved. It’s clear that the elections of 2011 were affected by misleading calls, and the matter has to be investigated. Therefore, without faith in elections there is no democracy.
History was being made in the United States’ politics in the year 2008. There was the possibility of choosing the first African-American president, the first female president or the first female vice president. It was a war between maintaining the status quo and the change that was so badly needed.
Though many people got the information that was not the right information due to misreporting by media agencies, the truth was within their reach. Sarah Palin was not as unqualified as the media would want us to believe. There were a lot of factors at play than what we were able to note. Sarah Palin received biased reports especially by the media which propagated the idea that she was unqualified.
Sara Palin received unfavorable coverage from the media which concentrated more on her private life than that of her male counter part. To begin with, the family and personal life of Sarah Palin was given much attention by the media than was the private lives of her male counterparts.
This portrayed Palin as a failure in areas where she had actually excelled. The Obama campaign team had argued that Sarah had no experience for running the country. On the contrary, Palin had substantial experience in corporate governance, if that was what ordinary American voters were to look at. Unfortunately that was not given much public coverage as was other matters.
It is always expected that during elections, people will choose those who have led by example to be their leaders. However, many voters who do not get the chance of meeting the candidates physically make choices depending on the media coverage. Therefore, it should be noted that media has great influence on the number of people who make up their minds to vote somebody in, or out for that matter. Consequently, the media coverage that Palin got was not to her favor and this made her loose a lot of votes.
It was sad to see how Obama campaign team’s criticisms on Palin’s experience got substantial media coverage yet her strong points were not aired as such. On the same note, Obama just as Palin was a senator who was seeking a higher elective post. It is ironical that while Palin received a lot of negative arguments regarding her experience, Obama received minimal if any at all. It should be noted that if corporate experience was to be the determining factor then Palin was experienced compared to Obama.
Furthermore, Sarah Palin was campaigning against the stereotype that women are inferior and could not rule over the American economy. It was clear from various media productions that women aspirants were subjected to different type of questions regarding their family affairs contrary to their male counterparts.
On the same note, it can be noted that the dressing style of Sarah Palin was closely monitored throughout the campaign period, while that of Joe Biden her counter part was not even talked about. Similarly, the stand of Sarah Palin on the sexism was put into scrutiny while male counter parts were not scrutinized on the same.
It is clear that sexism issues played a center stage in Palin’s campaigns. Compared to her competitors, Palin was well placed to handle the national issues. However, the media was selective and highly criticized Palin based on selective aspects which were not used on the male contestants. Subsequently, Palin was pined down because she was judged based on her gender instead of the principles she represented.
Post Soviet countries are particularly interesting to analyze because the Soviet state compelled and directed their activities during the USSR period, and yet repressed many others that supported democracy. Only three nations currently boast of democratic rule while the rest of the fifteen countries are either fully or partially autocratic.
Undemocratic rule in post-USSR nations
Democracy is a mode of governance in which the public is the major influencer of political decisions. Democratic states expect citizens to participate in elections and other activities done between elections. Examples include finding membership in a political party, questioning political leaders and lobbying for or against undesirable policies.
Nonetheless, the state must still consider the opinions of less-active citizens during political decision-making. Additionally, democratic countries need to preserve the liberty, autonomy and privacy of its citizens. The analysis of this report will be on whether post soviet countries possess these traits several years after separation from a communist regime.
The level of democracy attained in post-USSR nations is quite divergent. Therefore, one cannot talk about all fifteen countries in a sweeping manner. In fact, it is appropriate to divide post-Soviet countries in accordance with their level of political development. Nations with a moderate level of democracy include Lithuania, Moldova, Estonia and Latvia. These are countries that have transferred power to members of the opposition through elections.
Undemocratic states consist of those entities that have never transferred power to the opposition, and they include Kazakhstan, Russia, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. Power in these nations is concentrated in the hands of few individuals who transfer control to predetermined entities. Other nations have combined both democratic and undemocratic rule over the past two decades; some of them include Belarus, Armenia, Georgia, Tajikistan, Azerbaijan and Ukraine (Heathershaw 3).
In certain circumstances, these latter countries have had democratic regimes that have preceded or paved the way for undemocratic rule. In the future, such countries are likely to choose one path over the other. It is imperative to understand the historical or national developments that characterize and led to the state of autocracy in most post USSR nations.
However, before analyzing the reasons behind authoritarian rule in these states, one must first understand the political landscape in the countries. In most of the nations that have an undemocratic system, manipulation of the constitution is a common practice. Authoritarian rulers regard the constitution as an obstacle to their ability to control power.
Therefore, many of them have and continue to amend their constitutions in order to protect their place. For instance during the 1990s, Russia made it almost impossible to impeach the president. Other countries may not have passed such a constitutional law, but they still abide by its principles.
Countries like Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, and Russia have unusually strong presidential powers. As a result, parliament has limited control thus perpetuating autocratic rule. Some presidents such as Kazakhstan’s Nursultan Nazarbayev and Karimov of Uzbekistan had limited powers, but they used the constitution to prolong their rule in those respective nations. Other presidents have carried out referendums and used decrees in order to ascertain that they remain country leaders.
Issues of personality cults are not uncommon in some post-soviet nations. A case in point was the death of Saparmut Niyazov of Turkmenistan. He had ruled the country since its independence and left its citizens confused when he died in 2006. Some of these countries create dynastical tendencies by prescribing and handing over the presidency of their nations to their predecessor’s next of kin. One such example was Azerbaijan’s leader Jeydar Aliyev who ascertained that his son took over power when he left.
A number of the presidents in these nations exploit their powers in order to secure their positions. Many of them use economic awards as tools for political control. Therefore, contracts will not go to the people who deserve them but will be received by the least threatening group.
Presidents of these post-Soviet nations want to ascertain that no alternatives exist for their power. It is a known fact that sometimes economic elites have mobilized themselves and controlled the political leadership. Therefore, such countries prefer to sacrifice economic prosperity for presidential control.
Even the status of political parties in these nations is quite wanting. Many political parties are just superficial creations designed to solidify the president’s position. For instance, in Russia a political party known as United Russia has been attested to the ruling president. In Kazakhstan, Otan is the presidential party while Tajikistan has the People’s Democratic Party. The parties lack substance and do not stand for any ideologies.
Democratic nations have parties that are based on ideas not personalities, even when they exist in a newly independent nation. Countries such as China and Mexico have had ruling parties from time immemorial. However the CP and PRI, respectively, came to power through legitimate social revolutions. As a result, these parties truly mean something to the people. The same is not true for many post-Soviet nations.
The state of media freedom in the above-mentioned authoritarian regimes is defective. Because of the dictatorial nature of these nations, political leaders keep a tight grip on the media because it controls how the public perceives them. In fact, cases of assassination of journalists have been common in these states.
A case in point was the murder of Anna Politikovskaya in Russia. She was a Russian journalist who committed herself to the fight for democracy. Her efforts came to an abrupt end after her killing. Likewise, the death of political opponents in these countries also explains why democracy is yet to be attained there. The death of a political opposition leader known Zamanbek Nurkadilov in Kazakhstan testifies to these occurrences.
Many revolutions have taken place in these states as an indication of the discontentment that the public has about their political systems. For instance, in 2008, Armenian citizens attempted a revolution but they failed to garner the numbers needed to make the revolution successful. Additionally, three revolutions took place between 2005 and 2006 in Belarus, Azerbaijan and Armenia again, yet these revolutions did not lead to changes in the democratic landscape of those nations.
Scholars have called these uprisings the fifth wave or color revolutions. The public in post-USSR has expressed its discontent with the ruling elite through a series of demonstrations, but the government has repressed most of these uprisings. A case in point was the Andijan protests in Uzbekistan, which took place in May 2005. Members of the group opposed the trials of local Islamic businessmen. The state responded by killing and mistreating the participants of that act.
Separatism is common in several of these nations. Some of them have fueled military conflicts as well as tensions in the region. Adjara in Georgia was one such location. An autocrat known as Aslan Abashidze led the region until 2004. He broke geographical ties with Georgia after claiming that the latter country would attack the region. Abashidze’s people did not support him and eventually caused an uprising. When the leader left, Adjara rejoined Georgia.
Therefore, separatist claims have undermined democracy in larger countries and been created by autocratic leaders in the seceding territories. Many of these calls for separatism have led to frequent bursts of violence. Azerbaijan has been in constant conflict with Nagomo Karabakh and issues between these nations have not been resolved to this day (Kuzio 371).
The problem of civil wars is not uncommon among some of these nations. A Georgian civil war occurred because of divergent political views among the electorate. Tajikistan is also another country marred by civil conflicts. These occurrences would not be prevalent in democratic states because entities in such nations do not have to use violence in order to make their voices heard.
Factors that contribute to the lack of democracy in most post USSR nations
Religion and culture is a crucial contributor to this problem. Several authoritarian nations in the former USSR region, except Russia, are Islamic. Conversely, the countries that fall in the democratic category are predominantly Christian. Although one cannot make a blanket statement about how Islam influenced the state of democracy in these nations, it is crucial to acknowledge that religious affiliations affected their final outcomes.
Scholars acknowledge that democracy is a western idea that has been propagated and embraced by people that belong to this group. Additionally, many western cultures also adhere to the Christian faith. Consequently, post-soviet nations that were predominantly Christian tended to identify more with their western counterparts than any other players in the international political scene.
As a result, these countries were more likely to adopt methods of governance that reflected western principles. Conversely, nations with an Islamic background did not care much for the values of democracy because they did not feel associated with the west. Nonetheless, the influence of Islam on democracy has been the subject of much debate in scholastic circles, so one must realize the complexities of this matter in understanding the region (Trapsh 39).
In close relation to the above argument is the notion of a country’s national consciousness. The historical developments in most post-Soviet nations had a lasting effect on their current political predispositions. Nations such as Russia had imperial governments in their past.
Individuals such as Peter the Great have defined Russia’s national consciousness and caused many of them to identify with this political disposition. The latter leader was an autocrat who then paved the way for current undemocratic occurrences in this nation. Additionally, several Uzbekistanis had another autocratic leader during the 14th Century known as Timur.
He conquered most of Central and Western Asia at the time. Although these exploits took place centuries ago, many citizens of the country draw a lot of pride from them, and have formed current identities based on those ideas. Likewise, Kazakhstanis rested power in elected khans who descended from a Mongol ruler.
Therefore, although the khans were elected, they had to descend from a privileged line. Such thinking paved the way for democratic failures in this country today. Conversely, a country such as the Ukraine has undergone a lot of unstable periods in its past. During the 17th Century, the country has a combination of partly democratic and partly anarchic systems. It is these developments that have contributed to their current identity as a moderately democratic nation (Diamond 2).
The problem of ethnic conflicts as well as border disputes has been a characteristic for several of these post-Soviet nations, and may explain why the countries are yet to attain democracy. Cases of border disputes between Georgia and Russia over South Ossetia and other regions indicate how fragile the relationship has been between members of the former USSR.
Additionally, Ukraine has often fought with Russia over the Asov Sea. The same fight has occurred between Ukraine and Romania. These border disputes may have contributed to the economic destabilization of some post-soviet nations.
Aside from the history and the culture of these nations, strict dictatorship also arose because of the constitutional conditions in the post-soviet nations. Many of these countries had just left a communist regime in the Soviet, so they needed to reengineer their political systems. Democratic principles seemed promising to these entities, but few of them lacked the knowledge and systems to implement it. Therefore, the transitional nature of these countries after the break-up of the Soviet may have perpetuated such a system.
Some of the leaders in these fifteen nations served in the former Soviet as leaders. In an effort to rid themselves off the remnants of the past, many of these nations had conflicts between presidents and other leaders. Most presidents won; after which, they consolidated power by undermining the constitution. Such actions set a precedent for proceeding leaders in those nations. They could manipulate the constitution in order to serve their interests (Trapsh 40).
Economic control was a crucial tactic that many post soviet presidents used in order to consolidate power. Many of them privatized crucial state-owned corporations and ensured that they belonged to nonthreatening groups. A case in point was Kazakhstan leader Nazarbaev. He gave Jews and several other foreign companies oil contracts in order to ensure that the new elite did not threaten his position.
He did not want Kazakhs to garner enough wealth to challenge him. Furthermore, Nazarbaev felt that enriching one clan over the other would minimize his prospects for supreme rule, so he decided to look outside for these deals. Likewise, Russia’s Yeltsin used the same logic when granting contracts to organizations in the banking sector.
Six of the seven banks in the country were Jewish-owned. He believed that giving members of such a marginal group enormous economic power would minimize their chances of mobilizing a mass following against him. Since few Jews exist in Russia, it is unlikely that these wealthy bankers could have sufficient numbers to oust its leader (Hirsh 210).
Some analysts believe that these post-Soviet nations simply have not reached the level of political maturity that would facilitate democracy. A country needs to have a valid opposition and constitution that change agents can use as reference points during their call for political transformation.
A country like Turkmenistan often treats elections as rituals because the public already knows who will win; Uzbekistan shares the same fate as the latter. In addition, these countries do not possess a legal opposition. Therefore, no other side can question the governing authority about its ability to obey to the constitution. Unless an election is legitimate, then chances are such undemocratic systems will continue to thrive. It is possible that the lack of such institutions has placed these nations in a vicious cycle of autocracy.
As mentioned earlier, several revolutions have taken place in post-USSR in order to oust authoritarian leaders; however, few of them have been as successful at instating democratic institutions in affected countries. The failure of these revolutions is explained by the lack of unity among the electorate.
Most members of the revolution focused too much on winning elections rather than enabling a new democratic dispensation to arise in their respective countries. These revolutions sometimes came up when elections were disputed, and caused opposing leaders to get into power. In Kyrgyzstan, President Akayev had to resign after the Tulip Revolution arose. Therefore, the excessive focus on short term goals may have minimized the ability of the revolutions to cause tangible changes in the democratic status of their countries (Hale 312).
Ethnic division is a serious problem for many post soviet nations. In fact, this explains why undemocratic leaders continue to thrive even in areas where elections take place. A case in point is the support for President Yanukovych in 2011. He enjoyed a lot of support from certain ethnic regions, especially in his home base.
Yanukovych hailed from an Eastern Ukraine town known as Donetsk. Members of the region unanimously voted for him because they thought of him as ‘their man’. Since it is a coal mining region, most of these individuals make their daily plans on the basis of their shifts at the mines.
They have no time to be active in politics since work at the mine is quite demanding. Furthermore, many of them are uncertain about their return from work because conditions there are quite dangerous. Most of them simply vote for the person their coworkers or their bosses tell them to vote. Even workers’ wives merely listen to their husbands and vote accordingly. President Yanukovych belongs to The Party of Regions, and its support is unrivalled in certain key institutions in the country.
For instance, school heads will often warn voluntary organizations from talking about political matters to their students. This is because they are loyal supporters of The Party of Regions. Supporters of the President from the East believe that they deserve to control politics because they are the most productive members of the nation. They often make fun of Western Ukrainians owing to their peasant lifestyles.
Conversely, Western Ukrainians believe that the current President is a weak leader who allowed the real power to rest in the hands of bureaucrats and Russian entities. These sharp animosities between regions in post-Soviet nations contribute to undemocratic tendencies in these nations (Leigh 4).
The last reason why autocratic rule has thrived in some post-soviet nations is the delivery of economic prosperity or relative stability among certain leaders. A case in point was Russia’s President Putin’s economic-prosperity-for-social-stability deal.
He governed the country for 12 years and substituted the tumultuous economic hardships of the Yeltsin era with lucrative energy and economic successes. Ordinary Russians feel this leader’s presence is synonymous with stability hence explaining their support for him. In essence, Russia’s political freedom has been traded for economic stability.
Conclusion
The lack of democracy in post USSR countries is not unexpected given the myriad of challenges confronted by these nations. Several of them have histories that favor autocratic rule. They are regionally and ethnically divided, and lack the political systems needed to support democratic rule. This explains why civil war, border disputes, unfair elections, weak political parties, paternal presidents, and abuse of economic and constitutionals privileges are common among post-Soviet leaders.
Works Cited
Diamond, Larry. “The Democratic Rollback: The Resurgence of the Predatory State.” Foreign Affairs, May 2008, pp. 1-2. Print.
Hale, Harriet. “Democracy or Autocracy on the March? The Colored Revolutions as Normal Dynamics of Patrimonial Presidentialism.” Communist and Post Communist Studies, 39 (2005)” 305-329. Print.
Heathershaw, John. Post-conflict Tajikistan: The politics of peace building and the emergence of legitimate order. London: Routledge. Print.
Hirsh, Francis. “Towards an Empire of Nations: Border –Making and The Formation Of Soviet National Identities.” Russian Review 59.2(2000): 201-226. Print.
Kuzio, Taras. “Civil Society, Youth and Social Mobilization in Democratic Revolutions.” Journal of Communist and Post Communist Studies 39.1(2006): 371. Print.
Leigh, Christopher. Who Votes for Yanukovych? Web.
Trapsh, Nicolay. “Problems of Post Communism.” The North Caucasus and the multilevel international subsystem 54.2(2007): 38-48. Print.
The Electoral College plays a very significant role in the United States’ presidential elections. It is the institution that determines who becomes the next president and vice president of the United States of America after every four years (Lipsitz 186). This implies that the United States’ president and his or her vice president never get directly elected by the voters.
The Electoral College is constituted by individuals who have been popularly elected to represent every state; they are referred to as electors (Burgan 17). The number of electors in each specific state is restricted by the number of Congressional members each specific state is allowed to have.
The Electoral College is an electoral system in the United States that was established through the Constitution of the United States; this was subsequently amended through the establishment of the 12th Amendment of the year 1804. Currently, the Electoral College is constituted by 538 electors each of whom has only one vote (Neale 2).
In order for a presidential candidate to win the elections, he or she must get a minimum of 270 of the votes from the members of the Electoral College (Belenky 100). If a candidate fails to get the 270 votes, the 12th Amendment is invoked so as to allow the House of Representatives to determine who become the president and vice president of the United States of America (Belenky 123). In this case, only a simple majority is required for a presidential candidate to win.
Nonetheless, it is important to note that there have only been two instances in which the House of Representatives has had to decide who becomes the president. The first one was in 1801 when Thomas Jefferson was elected as president by the House of Representatives; the second one was in 1825 when John Quincy Adams was also elected president by the House of Representatives (Belenky 149).
The Problems Facing the Electoral College
The Electoral College has been faulted on various grounds. Many political scholars have extensively researched and written on the challenges faced by the Electoral College. In this regard, this literature review will consider the problems that the Electoral College faces with respect to the elections of presidents and vice presidents in the United States of America.
Therefore, it is worth noting the Constitution of the United States provides for a presidential election to take place among states and not among individual citizens. As explained in the introduction, each state is assured of a number of representatives to vote on behalf of its members.
The Electoral College and Democracy
It is important to note that the United States of America is in the forefront promoting democratic governance not only within its borders, but also across the world.
In this regard, a number of scholars have examined the relevance of the Electoral College in promoting democracy in the elections of United States’ presidents and vice president. One of the scholars have presented two reasons he perceives as fostering the belief that the Electoral College system of presidential elections is undemocratic; the first is that it is fostered by the understanding democracy relates to what most voters need (Glenn 4).
According to the scholar, this contradicts the opinion of the founders of the Electoral College that “democratic” entails as much as conceivable popular consent with justice and the common good (Glenn 4). The second argument is that it is fostered by the belief that one-person-one-vote for presidential voting in every state is undemocratic since democracy means that there should be one-vote-one-value nationally (Glenn 4).
Many researchers contend that the Electoral College is one of the most criticized facets of presidential elections in the United States. In this case, it is argued that the rules used in determining a winner in the electoral college may be detrimental to the process of democracy.
In this respect, the rule requiring that a winner takes it all and the inevitability of winning a majority in the Electoral College perplexes many since it does not make the basis for elections based on popular voters’ decisions (Bugh 65; Oppenheimer and Edwards 231). In this case, the researchers have a common argument that the Electoral College does not allow for every American’s vote to count in determining who becomes the president.
This is because, as shown by Sanders (49), in some instances where a presidential candidate may get the majority of the popular votes but fails to garner the majority of the Electoral votes; conversely, a presidential candidate may fail to garner the majority of the popular votes but ends up becoming president by winning the majority of the Electoral College vote.
Therefore, it is clear that the foregoing researchers are in support of majoritarianism, which demands that the will of the majority prevails. The majoritarian theory is discussed in the next section.
However, some supporters of the Electoral College system have hailed its existence with respect to the promotion of the popular will of the people. According to them, the Electoral College makes the popular election process fairer to the interests of the small states; the small states are considered as geographical minorities within the United States. In this case, they argue that the Electoral College elects the United States presidents by wider and more diverse interests than would elections done directly by voters nationally.
Some scholars argue that the Electoral College system produces presidents who are more likely govern the country for the general good of the people. With respect to this, they further argue that the Framers of the Constitution provided the Electoral College system with regard to the fact claim that democracy is not based on the sole perception that democracy can only be preserved by the will of the majority. Therefore, it is argued that the Electoral College represents an amalgamation of the will of the majority.
It is also argued that the Electoral College strengthens the popular choice of American presidents. According to the arguments, this happens by encouraging greater voter support to the ultimate presidential winner. Based on this, the implication is that this approach produces a more democratic outcome than the process of choosing presidents through a popular voting system.
The conclusion that can be drawn here is that the Electoral College system produces a stronger democratic system than the popular voting system; this greatly contrasts with the belief of scholars who think the Electoral System is a distortion of democracy.
Therefore, the existence of the differing perspectives of the Electoral College and its relationship with democracy point to the fact that there is still a need for further studies to determine the role the Electoral College in nurturing and promoting democratic presidential elections in the United States. This is because there seems to be a lack of consensus among political scholars as to whether the Electoral College promotes or thwarts democracy within the United States’ presidential election processes.
Majoritarianism Model
Political scientists have established many theories to explain the American democracy. One of the theories is the majoritarianism (Lijphart 141). However, the scientists provide a caveat that there no one single theory that can describe the American political aspects in totality. In this case, therefore, each theory can only describe or deal with a portion of American politics (Lijphart 149).
For the purposes of this review, the focus has intentionally been placed on the majoritarianism. Majoritarianism is the notion that collective decisions are made properly when they are a reflection of the will of the majority. Voting theorists argue that voting rules should satisfy the principles of majoritarianism. This is one of the reasons the Electoral College system has been criticized with respect to democratic presidential elections (Janda, Berry, Goldman and Hula 2008).
Even though the majoritarian theory assumes that the government’s responsiveness to popular demands comes through mass participation in a political process, the theory views the participation within a narrow scope. However, the theory favors conventional voting in elections (Janda, Berry, Goldman and Hula 2008).
This is because, according to proponents of the theory, majoritarianism solely rely on vote counting so as to determine the will of the majority with respect to specific issues, especially the presidential elections. This means that its bias towards political equality is strong (Janda, Berry, Goldman and Hula 2008).
However, it is worth noting that the majoritarianism has been faulted on various grounds. It has been criticized due to the fact that it has limited motivation; in this case, it does not allow resourceful individuals to exercise personal or private influence with respect to government actions (Janda, Berry, Goldman and Hula 2008). Besides, it has also been criticized on the grounds that it limits individual freedom since it focuses on voting as the primary means of mass participation.
This subsequently limits the scope of the conservative political behavior by describing the political actions that can be regarded as logical and suitable. This means that even if a decision may be wrong, the mere fact that the majority voted for it necessitates that the decision is adopted or considered the most appropriate. Critics argue that this may not be good for a country (Janda, Berry, Goldman and Hula 2008).
The Electoral College and Political Equality
Political equality is one of the grounds on which the Electoral College has been criticized. In this case, the main focus has been placed on rights and equality to participate in the political process of electing a president of the United States. Many researchers have reported that the main concerns of political campaigns by presidential candidates are the states that are considered as “battlegrounds” which are states in which candidates of the major parties have high chances of winning (Bond and Smith 345).
The distribution of electoral votes has also been seen as a problem with a significant challenge to the credibility of the Electoral College. Pundits argue that the Electoral College tends to favor the small states. It is argued that the total number of electors received by each state is determined by the number of representatives in both the House and Senate. In this regard, it is generally perceived that the small states are favored, to some extent, due to their statuses as states (Bond and Smith 347).
However, another scholar has argued that since the total number of electors for each state is a combination of the Senate and House representation numbers, the imbalance arising between large and small states is not as extensive as as it is in the Senate. In this case, the scholar argues that a small state with a population of about 600000 people has a similar representation as large states with, say, ten to twenty million (Bond and Smith 389).
Based on this argument, other researchers have noted that this kind of perceived favoritism suggests that some voters may be more important than others. It is noted that voters in the so called battle grounds receive more attention from presidential candidates relative to other voters; this scenario contradicts the commitment to political equality as defined by majoritarianism (Bugh 83).
In addition, there is another scholar who has argued that even in the states known as battlegrounds, the winner-take-all vote allocation is biased to those on the losing end. This means that the votes of those on the losing end do not count as far as determining who becomes the president of the United States is concerned; in other words, they can be described as wasted votes. The proponents of this argument suggest that there should be a proportional system of allocating electoral votes (Drachman and Langran 146).
Another study has revealed that the wasted votes have had the effect of low voter turnouts. This situation has been blamed on the Electoral College (Bugh 50). Researchers contend that the voter turnout in the United States has been lower than other Western democracies (Drachman and Langran 146). The argument in this case is that it is obvious that in more than half of the states where candidates are expected to win, voters have limited incentive to turn out and vote in a presidential election.
Another study shows that presidential candidates spend less time campaigning in those regions thereby reinforcing the claim of low voter turnout. Owing to the fact that the democratic theory places high value upon political participations, this scenario is viewed to be a setback brought about the existence of the Electoral College (Drachman and Langran 146).
Moreover, the other problem that faces the Electoral College revolves around the relationship between the Electoral College and the two-party system. In this respect, several researchers have collectively argued that the Electoral College has the propensity to promote the two major parties while attenuating the influence of third parties (Bugh 215).
In this case, the researchers have looked at the elections of 1992 where Ross Perot, a third-party candidate, garnered 19 per cent of the popular vote while not managing to get electoral votes to prove their argument (Bugh 215).
Furthermore, it has been considered that the “winner-takes-it-all” allocation of electoral vote has also had a significant contribution to the controversy affecting the Electoral College. According to a study, if the electoral votes were to be proportionately allocated, third parties would definitely be capable of receiving electoral votes, particularly in larger states where the threshold for securing electoral votes would be low (Bugh 228).
Another researcher has revealed that in the current system, third parties find themselves in a very difficult position (Bennet 27). This is based on other studies that have revealed that citizens worry about wasting their votes on parties and candidates who, for all intents and tenacity, have no chance of winning the elections.
The Risk of Faithless Electors
Sometimes the Electoral College has electors who, for reason or another, may decide to vote against their party designated candidate; these are the electors who are referred to as the “faithless electors.” Available literatures show that there has been 157 faithless electors since the Electoral College was established (Bennet 95).
A researcher has observed that the potential for malice on the basis of an elector’s faithlessness has far reaching implications; according to his argument, this may extend well beyond the possibility that the Electoral College may tie or otherwise fail ensuring the required majority (Bennet 95).
This means that an elector’s faithlessness could result in entirely decisive outcome in the Electoral College. This is because an elector may decide to vote for another candidate or otherwise abstain from casting his or her vote. Political scientists agree that this kind of a scenario makes the Electoral College system to be a complicated election process (Green and Coffey 17).
This is because, according to various researchers, it may lead to the election of a minority president, who might not have garnered the majority of popular votes (Green and Coffey 17). This has been viewed by many commentators as being unfair to the American democracy. Such commentators argue that besides being unfair, the faithlessness of some electors prevents the members of a concerned state from exercising the right to participate in electing the president of their choice (Green and Coffey 48).
Conclusion
The literature review process has pointed out a number of issues with regard to the problems facing the Electoral College. First, with respect to democracy, the outcome of the review process has revealed that there is no consensus among various scholars as regards whether the Electoral College promotes democracy or thwarts it. In this case, there are scholars who have argued that the Electoral College does not represent democracy in the United States.
These scholars have advanced the argument that the Electoral College system does not allow for the popular voting process to determine the president of the United States. In this case, they posit that the privilege has been given to the few who constitute the Electoral College. This has been seen to contradict the principles of majoritarianism, which is one of the prominent theories of democracies.
However, the review process has also revealed that other scholars consider the Electoral College system of election as representative of the will of the majority, which they consider as being in tune with the theory of democracy. This group of scholars argues that the electors are representatives who have been mandated by the people to represent them in the presidential election. This implies that the people exercise their democratic rights through their representatives.
In addition, the review process has also revealed that there are scholars who believe that the Electoral College system of presidential elections does not allow for political equality among the Americans. The review process has also revealed that the main concerns of political campaigns by presidential candidates are the states that are considered as “battlegrounds” which are states in which candidates of the major parties have chances of winning.
It is also clear that some researchers perceive the Electoral College as favoring the small states. There is also the problem of faithless electors who may not vote according to their party commitments; this has been seen as casting aspersion on the integrity of the Electoral College system.
Works Cited
Belenky, Alexander. Who Will Be the Next President? A Guide to the U. S. Presidential Election System. New York, USA: Springer, 2013. Print.
Bennet, Robert. Taming the Electoral College. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 2006. Print.
Bond, Jon and Smith Kevin. The Promise and Performance of American Democracy. London, UK: Cengage Learning, 2009. Print.
Bugh, Gary. Electoral College Reform: Challenges and Possibilities. London, UK: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2010. Print.
Burgan, Michael. The Electoral College. North Mankato: Capstone, 2007. Print.
Drachman, Edward and Langran Robert. You Decide: Controversial Cases in American Politics. New York, USA: Rowman & Littlefield, 2008. Print.
Glenn, Gary. “The Electoral College and the Development of American Democracy.” Perspective on Political Science 32.1 (2008): 1-7. Print.
Green, John and Coffey Daniel. The State of the Parties: The Changing Role of Contemporary American Parties. New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007. Print.
Janda Kenneth, Berry Jeffrey, Goldman Jerry and Hula Kevin. The Challenge of Democracy: American Government in a Global World, Student Choice Edition. New York, USA: Cengage Learning, 2008. Print.
Lijphart, Arend. Thinking about Democracy: Power Sharing and Majority Rule in Theory and Practice. New York, USA: Routledge, 2007. Print.
Lipsitz, Keena. “The Consequences of Battle Ground and Spectator State Residency for Political Participation.” Political Behavior 31.2 (2009): 186-199. Print.
Neale, Thomas. Electoral College Reform: 111th Congress Proposals and Other Current Developments. New York, USA: DIANE Publishing, 2010.
Oppenheimer, Danny and Mike Edwards. Democracy Despite Itself: Why a System That Shouldn’t Work at All Works So Well. London, UK: MIT Press, 2012. Print.
Sanders, Arthur. Losing Control: Presidential Elections and the Decline of Democracy. New York, USA: Peter Lang, 2007. Print.
Governor Sarah Palin was the running mate of Republican Candidate John McCain during the General Elections in the US in 2008. It has been argued that the media coverage she received in the run up to that election was biased and led McCain to lose to President Barack Obama. This paper will discuss whether sexism and misogyny in media coverage were the main factors that led to the failure of Governor Palin to become Vice President in 2008.
The media has been accused of undermining female political aspirants and other well known public figures. Gender activists have accused US mainstream media of stereotyping gender roles during Palin’s Vice -Presidential campaigns in 2008. These activists argue that the media’s coverage was heavily slanted and did not bring out Palin’s positive leadership traits.
Some gender observers add that the media’s coverage strengthened long held stereotypes in the public about female candidates and women in general. These observers conclude that the sexist nature of the media coverage led the public to doubt Sarah Palin’s leadership credentials.
The media is dominated by male reporters and journalists who rub shoulders with powerful male politicians. Observers argue that this situation made Palin’s campaign to be viewed from a sexist and non-objective angle. Gender observers add that politics and election contests are viewed as adversarial.
Masculinity dominates the language used by the media to describe political contests making elections to be seen as a male affair. Metaphors used by journalists to describe elections include: battles, battle ground, combat, duel, victory and strategy. The media scrutinizes the backgrounds of political candidates during elections which makes it harder for women vying for public office to succeed.
It is right to say that the media has a lot of influence on who gets elected to public office. It should not be assumed however that, it is only the media’s bias that led to Palin’s loss in the Vice- Presidential election of 2008. Her candidature depended heavily on the way the main candidate John McCain and his campaign team reached out to voters.
McCain had more media attention than Palin because he was running for the top office in the land. Palin’s role was complementary to McCain’s efforts and as such, her success or failure was tied to how McCain was able to get voters’ support. The policy issues that McCain had in his plan were not popular with voters. The economy was performing badly and his challenger President Obama was able to raise voters’ expectations more than McCain did.
The then outgoing president, George Bush, a Republican was very unpopular. His policies had created problems for the country. Sarah Palin as the Vice Presidential Republican running mate had some of this resentment by voters directed to her.
The reaction of the voters therefore, was partly influenced by the poor performance of the outgoing administration which had low popularity ratings. The campaign of Palin and McCain was evaluated by their inability to bring the desired change in the administration of public affairs. McCain’s campaign failed to the most critical issues voters were passionate about.
In conclusion, it is misleading to blame gender bias by the media as the major cause for Sarah Palin’s failure in 2008. Other factors related to McCain’s campaign contributed to the loss in presidential elections. McCain’s campaign failures made the Republican Party to lose the race for White House.