A congress is a group of people elected to by people to make laws. The United State of America consists of a senate and the House of Representatives. The principal accountability of a democratic state is to try and regulate risks that politicians rule over the people. This can be effectively achieved by regular and fair elections by allowing the citizens to extend or terminate government tenure. For a government to extend its tenure they try to woe the people by being responsive to their needs.
Reasons for incumbents are re- elections.
Most of the incumbents upon realizing they want another term they work towards anticipating potential expectations and past judgments, therefore the citizens vote to get a better government and structure incentives for them.
The incumbents use their power of redrawing legislative district boundaries to create more safe seats for themselves
Changes in electron behavior
The decrees in partisanship benefit the incumbent. This is most effective where the people choose their leaders carefully by not being blinded by the political parties or influential leaders.
Money is being used in regulating elections. It has been seen that the newcomers are likely to spend more than the incumbent is trying to familiarize themselves; as the challenger is competing against a well-established name. Therefore the incumbent is not likely to go into bankruptcy quicker than the challenger.
Positive development of a nation. Difference in governing skills. This is applicable in making sound decisions on different sectors of the state’s economy. This can be an added advantage to the country if mostly the state was in an economic meltdown.
Negative implications Inability to spend money.if the predecessor government was able to effectively control the government spending and the incoming tries to spend more they can put a country into a depression. Fear by the foreign investors. The foreign investors may fear the state of a government in maintaining peace, tranquility and the taxes. Most investors are interested in a country if it has good policies on taxation and the security of their businesses.
Even ground for all.
The constitution should come up with a way of regulating funds used during the campaigns as some have more advantage than other especially the ruling government. The constitution should guide on the levels of education rather than popularity. This mostly affects African countries where levels of illiteracy are high.
References
Samuel, David.” One good term deserves another: the advantage of incumbency in congressional elections.” The journal of politics vol 63 (2000):569-584.
Cover, Albert.” incumbents and challengers on a level playing field: assessing the impact of camping financing in Brazil.” American Journal of Political Science XX1 (1977).
In December 2007, Kenya, a country in East Africa held its national elections. At the time, the two main contenders for the presidential position were incumbent Emilio Mwai Kibaki and Raila Odinga.
The final results of the exercise were never released after the transparency of the tallying process was compromised. However, Kibaki was named the winner and sworn in at night, something that aggrieved the supporters of Odinga, who took to the streets in protest (Maina, n.d.).
In a few days, the protest had blown up to be a national war, with the supporters of the two leaders maiming and killing each other (Kenya elections on the brink, n.d.).
The tribal disagreements that had for a very long time been simmering underneath the surface blew up leading to the displacement of individuals who did not belong to the “right” tribe.
The fighting went on for three months, with international unions urging the two leaders, Odinga and Kibaki, to find an amicable solution before the situation escalated to uncontrollable levels.
The African Union set up a committee of eminent of persons, which was tasked with the responsibility of mediating the negotiations between the two leaders (The eminent Kenyan personalities, n.d.).
After weeks of discussion, an agreement was finally reached. Kibaki and Raila agreed to share power on a 50-50 basis, with the former retaining the post of president and the latter being assigned the position of Prime Minister, a position that was set up to help avert the situation (Kibaki and Odinga sign accord, n.d.).
Five years later, Kenya was due for another election. This time around, the main contestants for the presidency were Odinga and Uhuru Kenyatta (Raila Odinga will beat Kenyatta, n.d.).
The two groups went for campaigns around the country, but there was still the fear that the traumatic incidents of 2007/8 might recur.
Odinga and Kenyatta pledged to uphold peace and even held a joint prayer meeting, during which they shook hands and pledged to urge their supporters not to resort to violence.
The elections were held on March 4th, 2013 and according to released statistics, the attendance was the best recorded in the country’s history.
There were long queues at the different polling centers, with some individuals reporting having to stand in line for over eight hours to cast their ballot.
During this time, all the leaders kept insisting on the maintenance of peace, and by the close of the elections day, very few disagreements were reported, all of which were well handled.
Because the violence in 2007/8 was seen to arise as a result of a lack of transparency in the vote-counting process, careful attention was given the tallying exercise in 2013.
As a security measure, the Independent Elections and Boundaries Commission (IEBC), which was assigned the role of conducting the elections, had installed electronic result transmission systems, which were said to provide the total-tally in real-time.
The first few hours results from the different counties were sent to the main tallying center, located in the country’s capital city, Nairobi. The installed systems added the results as they came into the totals, which were then transmitted to the rest of the country, through live television broadcasts.
The country had been made to believe that the technology in use would help complete the tallying exercise in less than one day. However, by the end of the second day, less than 30% of the results had been tallied.
Later, Isaack Hassan, the Chairman of the IEBC came out to reveal that the system had crashed and could no longer be used for the counting exercise. Because of this failure, the tallying process was taken back to the manual system, used in 2007.
This change from digital to manual tallying made the tension-levels in the country rise a notch higher because IEBC could not immediately guarantee that the results being transported from all the counties could get to Nairobi without being tampered with.
The media kept broadcasting the appeals for peace from different leaders around the world, including America’s Barrack Obama.
The manual tallying process took five days, after which Kenyatta was declared the winner, having beaten Odinga by over one million votes (IEBC declares Uhuru Kenyatta Kenya’s fourth president, n.d.).
Odinga, on his part, was not satisfied with the final tally, saying that he had a suspicion that the count could have been compromised after the unexplainable failure of the electronic transmission system.
However, unlike in 2007, when he called out his supporters to protest the outcome in the streets, this time he decided to appeal to the court. Odinga accused the IEBC of not having discharged their duties as per the given mandate.
He also accused Kenyatta’s Jubilee coalition of having played a hand in the manipulation of results from different regions around the country in their favor.
The court battle was branded the biggest judicial challenge the country had ever experienced and to make the ruling, the judicial arm of the government assembled a bench of six supreme-court judges, led by Chief Justice Willy Mutunga (Kenya supreme court judges, n.d.).
Odinga and Kenyatta each contracted the most renowned lawyers from the country to help them argue their case, with the Kenyatta, reported having hired 30 lawyers to help counter Odinga’s force. The IEBC also had its team of lawyers, also comprising some of the best attorneys in the region.
The listening phase of the appeal took three days, with all the sessions being broadcast live on all the eight television stations in the country.
After Odinga had provided his appeal and Kenyatta countering it by handing in evidence against the allegations, it came down to the six-man bench to rule on the case.
The ruling was provided on 30th March, with Chief Justice Mutunga declaring that they had come to a unanimous agreement that Kenyatta had won the elections fairly. This saw the appeal get thrown out of court allowing the plans to swear in Kenyatta to go on.
Kenyatta and his running-mate William Ruto were sworn in a 9th April, taking over from Kibaki, who had completed the two terms allowed by the constitutions (Uhuru takes over power, n.d.).
From the entire process, no inter-tribal fighting was reported, and the joke around Kenya was that the international media were disappointed because they did not get the violence they flew in to report about.
For the good display, Kenya received acclaim from international quarters, with the heads of different countries from within and outside Africa sending in congratulatory messages.
Odinga and Kenyatta have since the inauguration of the latter as the president put aside their differences and are working to help reconcile the country.
Reference List
IEBC declares Uhuru Kenyatta Kenya’s fourth president [Image] (n.d.). Web.
Kenya elections on the brink [Image] (n.d.). Web.
Kenya supreme court judges. [Image] (n.d.). Web.
Kibaki and Odinga sign accord. [Image] (n.d.). Web.
Maina, S. [Image] (n.d.). Kibaki sworn in. Web.
Raila Odinga will beat Kenyatta [Image] (n.d.). Web.
The Kenyan eminent personalities [Image] (n.d.). Web.
In the 3rd District of Florida, Marihelen Wheeler, the Democratic candidate is the rival of the Republican candidate, Ted Yoho. It is noteworthy that the two candidates have similar views on some issues and, at the same time, hold different positions on certain problems persistent in society.
They both consider economic issues, illegal immigration, job creation, and veterans’ problems to be the areas of specific concern. At the same time, their views on certain areas are quite opposing which makes it clear that the winner will be the one who will address people’s expectations and will provide comprehensive solutions to the issues.
Admittedly, one of the most urging issues is the risk of a stagnating economy. Ted Yoho is a Republican who has a certain vision and is ready to come up with strategies to solve this problem. For instance, the candidate declares that the change of taxation and bringing more transparent rules to business would positively affect the US economy (“Ted Yoho: Ted’s current issues” par. 1). The strategy is also aimed at creating new jobs.
Wheeler does not focus on taxation, but she stresses that the change in immigration policy would have a positive impact on the development of the US economy (“What Immigrants Mean to Florida” par. 3). However, it is necessary to add that the candidate does not go into detail, and it is unclear what tools can be used to make this happen.
Another economic issue is the US national debt. The candidates also have different views on the national debt of the USA. Ted Yoho makes claims on the possibility of the debt default while Wheeler strongly disagrees with this position (Dahl par. 22). Clearly, the two candidates have quite different approaches to finding a solution to this issue when it comes to short-term benefits.
Again, Wheeler’s solution to this problem is rather obscure as the candidate does not give details and explanations on her position. Remarkably, the two candidates agree that national spending should be redeemed and Americans have to learn to live within their means.
When it comes to the military, both candidates have quite similar views. Yoho stresses that veterans do not obtain proper support from the government and promises to solve this issue (“Ted Yoho: Ted’s current issues” par. 5). Likewise, Wheeler stresses that the US military needs more funds. The two candidates stress that veterans need support when they are back home.
It is noteworthy that the two candidates do not highlight well-developed strategies they are going to employ to achieve this aim. At the same time, Yoho simply declares this necessity while Wheeler suggests certain steps to undertake.
For instance, the Democratic candidate stresses that it is the responsibility of Congress as well as all Americans to encourage veterans to obtain college education, and Wheeler also thinks that it is inappropriate to ask veterans (for instance, a combat medic) to repeat training “to be qualified for a civilian job” (“Keeping Our Commitment to Our Veterans” par. 4).
Wheeler also stresses that she will work on launching a reform of the VA system and she will try to reduce the time the military people are far from home. The candidate intends to develop programs to assist veterans to find civilian jobs more easily (“Keeping Our Commitment to Our Veterans” par. 4-5). Clearly, Wheeler has a certain vision on how to help veterans while Yoho simply states that it is necessary to assist these people.
As far as immigration issues are concerned, the two candidates have rather different views on the matter. Yoho claims that it is necessary to enhance laws and utilize advanced technology at the border to reduce illegal immigration (“Ted Yoho: Ted’s current issues” par. 7).
At the same time, Yoho claims that it is possible to provide legal immigrants with worker’s ID which will ensure their legal state in the country and they will also pay taxes which will be beneficial for the budget. In other words, Yoho strongly opposes the idea of legalization of immigrants as he sees a threat to the American population. As has been mentioned above, Wheeler claims that immigrants contribute greatly to the development of the US economy.
She stresses that legalization of immigrants would add more than a billion dollars to the gross state product and it could have “$21 billion induced economic impact” by 2030 (“What Immigrants Mean to Florida” par. 5). However, it is necessary to add that the candidate does not suggest a particular strategy to legalize immigrants.
Another issue the two candidates have different views on is the 2nd amendment. Ted Yoho supports the idea and stresses that it is one of the people’s Constitutional rights to protect themselves and their property (“Ted Yoho: Ted’s current issues” par. 9). However, Wheeler strongly opposes the idea as she sees a great threat to society and underlines that there have been numerous examples of these hazards (Dahl par. 23).
Wheeler criticizes Yoho’s position and Democrats note that he made his cynical statements even at the” anniversary of the Newtown shootings in Connecticut” (Dahl par. 23). Of course, the two candidates claim they would try to pursue their goals and convince people that their position on the matter is the right one.
Clearly, the two candidates have quite different views on major issues existing in American society. I would support the Democratic candidate as I find her position effective and I believe strategies suggested by Wheeler can help Americans solve various issues. I agree with Wheeler on all points. At the same time, I would like to note that in some areas (immigration, US economy) she does not suggest strategies which could be employed.
The candidate simply states that it is necessary to legalize immigrants but it is unclear how it can be done. Wheeler also stresses that veterans should obtain psychological, administrative and financial support but she does not mention tools to obtain funds to implement the strategy.
In conclusion, I would like to note that Yoho and Wheeler have quite opposing views on some of the most urgent issues existing in American society. I would support Wheeler, the Democratic candidate, as she tries to address the needs of people who constitute the American society. Unfortunately, the candidate does not provide answers to all questions.
Nonetheless, I believe that it is important to have people with such vision in Congress as they will raise questions and draw people’s attention to a variety of issues. I think the first step to solving a problem is outlining it and starting a debate. Therefore, I would choose Wheeler who would promote my ideas in Congress.
Works Cited
Dahl, Wills. The Baltimore Post-Examiner: Marihelen Wheeler takes the Fight to Ted Yoho. 2014. Web.
A president is a leader of a country, who takes responsibility for the lives of millions of people and promotes the well-being of a particular country. To be a good president is probably one of the most difficult and challenging tasks for all candidates because it is impossible to be good for everyone. There are a number of aspects that define the quality of the work done by the president.
Still, before making the president responsible for all positive and negative outcomes in the country, people should realize that they are also the participants of everything that happens around. They have already taken a crucial step and chosen the president. In the USA, the election of the President is a crucial event that makes all Americans think about their future and their potential leader (Belenky 9).
The actions, thoughts, and decisions of the American President say a lot about the country. A number of people think they can become good presidents; mothers want to believe that their son or daughter can become the best president even if it is not likely to happen (Witcover 13). That is why this kind of choice has to be properly organized and understood by a single American.
The current paper aims at discussing the peculiarities of the American presidential primary election process and its importance for the American citizens and the whole world, analyzing the coming elections, comparing the past and the present of the USA in terms of the primary elections, and explaining why every American has to participate in presidential primary elections.
Presidential Primary Elections in the USA: Essence
The presidency is the most significant position in the American government. It is very important for the citizens to comprehend the essence of the president’s election and organize it in a proper way. There are several stages in any election process. Still, the primary elections can be defined as the most crucial because the selection of the candidates takes place during this stage.
At this moment, the candidates should understand their skills and abilities and evaluate their readiness to become a single leader of the country. It is not only enough to know what a good president should do. It is more important to realize how influential and unforgettable each President’s decision can be.
The primary elections, also called the primaries, have a long history. They originated from the Progressive Era that took place from the end of the 1800s to the beginning of the 1900s (Leeser 70). That period was characterized by a number of significant social and political changes and reforms. It was necessary to improve the country and the way of how people had to live.
Primaries turned out to be an attempt to change the way the president elections were organized. It was necessary to deprive rich party bosses of the possibility to control the selection of the candidates and remove corruption and venality out of American politics (Leeser 70).
Nowadays, the purpose of the presidential primary election is to choose a candidate who can become the nominee of the party (Democratic or Republican) for the general presidential election. During the stage, all members of the parties have access to the nomination process despite the role and interests of the parties’ bosses (Schmidt et al. 291). The parties are able to evaluate the appropriateness of each party member and offer their best candidates to become the next President of the United States of America.
Types of Presidential Primary Elections
The American election system is constantly improved so that everyone can get relatively fair chances to introduce their points of views or be elected. The government developed several types of primaries that help to gain control over the election process and be confident in the correctness of every activity (Schmidt et al. 292).
The standards offered for the presidential primary elections promote the development of the strategies with the help of which all participants can be “to a certain extent constrained, and to a certain extent driven, by the ways in which actors are situated with respect to conditions that are for them given and hard to manipulate” (Polsby, Wildavsky and Hopkins 1).
There are several types of primary elections: open, closed, blanket, direct, and indirect. The first characteristic according to which the elections can be divided is for whom voters have to vote. For example, an indirect election is a process when the delegates of parties are chosen. A direct election means the choice of a person as a desired president of the country. As a rule, the primaries are of an indirect type because voters aim at choosing the party and an electorate group that can evaluate the positions of the candidates.
Primaries are also divided according to the party affiliation. Open primaries provide voters with a chance to vote regardless their parties affiliation. Each voter gets a ballot with all parties and their nominees. It is necessary to choose a party and a candidate. For example, Virginia is the state that usually chooses open primaries where voters can give their voices for either the Republican representative or the Democratic candidate (Leeser 70).
Closed primaries take place when voters have to choose a candidate of their own parties. It is important to register first and then vote and make a choice regarding the party affiliation. With the help of closed primaries, it is possible to control the solutions of people and not allow them crossing over different parties and choosing the weakest or less appropriate candidate. New Jersey is the state where this election system works (Leeser 70).
Blanket primaries provide voters with an opportunity to choose a candidate from different parties. Not all states support the idea of blanket primaries. Schmidt et al. admit that only Alaska, Louisiana, and Washington have this kind of elections (292).
In fact, the presidential primaries are used to identify the delegates, who will be able to introduce the candidates at the convention. As soon as parties introduce their choices, the main goal of the primaries can be defined as achieved.
Difference between Primaries and Caucuses
Sometimes, people, who have to study political science or need to be directly involved in the sphere of politics, cannot understand the difference that can exist between primaries and caucuses. Still, these two processes are different in their goals and the ways of how they are organized. Comparing with the scope of the presidential primaries, caucuses are small meetings that are held at the local level. Party regulars should gather and discuss the appropriateness of the nominee. In other words, primaries are organized by the state governments, and state parties take responsibility for the organization of caucuses.
Some parties do not find it necessary to pay much attention to caucuses. However, there are the states where caucuses play an important role, and the presidential elections cannot be organized without primaries and caucuses at the same time. Though the essence of these two types of elections is almost similar – to choose a nominee and identify his/her strengths and weaknesses,- people should understand the difference between the goals and the ways of how these two elections should be organized.
Presidential Primaries Process
Taking into consideration the essence and classification of the primaries, the process of presidential election at the primary stage can be easily explained and organized. The essence of the process is to make two main American parties (Republican and Democratic) introduce their candidate for the presidency at the convention. The delegates start visiting the conventions and choose the best options offered. At the end of the process, the choices have to be properly made, and clear explanations should be given.
The peculiar feature of this process is that the outcomes are hard to predict. It may happen that a candidate with “low initial name recognition” (Leeser 72) can win. The example of Jimmy Carter, the 39th American President, can be used. This man had only 2% of the national name recognition six months before he decided to become the nominee of his party (the Democrats) in 1967 (Leeser 72). The current American President, Obama, is another example of how captivating and educative the primaries can be.
The structure of his support during the primaries and caucuses differed a lot from the quality of support during the general elections (Ansolabehere, Persily and Steward 1431). Still, those, who do not want to believe in the power and effects of the primaries can investigate the Obama’s example and realize that the results of the final Presidential elections were similar to the primaries in 2008.
Campaigns during the Presidential Primaries
In any kind of election, a campaign is one of the possible ways to get to know more about a candidate and clarify the goals his/her team is able to set. The presidential primaries are not the exception. Primary campaigns are crucial because they help to understand what candidates are available during a particular election and why people have to choose a particular candidate.
It is necessary to clarify the goals and intentions of each candidate and explain the reasons for the suggestions. During the primaries, the voters can hear a lot from Republican and Democratic parties. Besides, it is also possible to hear something from the third parties and make the required comparisons.
The campaigns offered during the presidential primary election introduce the platform according to which the general elections will be organized. It is not enough to present the candidates and their main goals and priorities. It is necessary to explain to the voters why the choice of a particular candidate is a chance to promote changes. It is an opportunity to change the whole country and develop new relations with other countries. A potential president is a future face of the USA. Primary elections turn out to be the stage that cannot be ignored.
Finally, primary elections campaigns show the strongest and weakest aspects of the potential presidents. In fact, the developers of the campaigns do not find it necessary to identify the weak points. Still, the campaign is a picture, and the details cannot be omitted. At the same time, it is wrong to trust all campaigns and presentations offered. Ordinary people should realize that campaigns have an advertising nature. The campaign is a good chance to explain to people why they have to vote and why their decisions are crucial for the country.
Importance of Presidential Primary Elections in America
There are many reasons for why people should pay more attention to each stage of the presidential elections. First, it is necessary to realize that the presidency is the way of how the country could look like for the next four years. Besides, the president is a political figure that should introduce the country at the international level. The primaries are the elections that define the quality and even the standards according to which further elections should be organized. The results achieved at the end of the primaries.
Another important factor the presidential primary elections in America is the opportunity to provide all citizens with the basics of general elections. People may want to participate in elections. Still, they do not know how or why they should make all these decisions. Primary elections show how to behave, react, and analyze the events that take place at the moment.
As a rule, at the end of the primaries, it becomes clear what candidates are worth attention, and which opportunities are not enough to be developed further. The presidential primaries also help to identify new voters and invite more people to this kind of event.
Coming Primary Elections
At this moment, it is very important to understand the types and the nature of primary elections, because the next elections will take place in 2016. The government admits that primary elections should take place between February and June of the next year. The voters should understand that these elections are indirect, and their main task is to identify the delegate, who can become good candidates for the presidency.
The Americans should lose the opportunity to participate in these elections and learn if it is possible to change the situation and choose a new president with a new approach to the development of political relations. People also try to forecast the events and investigate the potentials of the defined delegates. Obama’s primaries in 2008 proved that the basis offered could become a good support for the general elections (Ansolabehere, Persily and Stewart 1434).
Conclusion
In general, the idea of the presidential primary elections is clear indeed. People have to realize that their participation is this kind of elections is their attempt to make the world better. It is hard to realize if people ever regret about the choices they make during the primary elections. Still, it is never too late to change the opinions and re-evaluate the opinions. Primary elections are the first steps taken by true Americans.
Of course, not all people find it necessary to spend their time, investigate the offered campaigns, and learn the achievements of the delegates offered. However, the mistakes of one group of people should not become the basis for the mistakes made by the others. A person may have an independent point of view, and the government should consider it. America is a huge country, and it is impossible to hear to everyone’s decisions. Nevertheless, the opinion given during the primary elections is the first attempt for ordinary people to be heard by the government.
Works Cited
Ansolabehere, Stephen, Persily, Nathaniel and Charles Stewart. “Race, Region, and Vote Choice in the 2008 Election: Implications for the Future of the Voting Rights Act.” Harvard Law Review 123.6 (2010): 1385-1436. Print.
Belenky, Alexander. Understanding the Fundamentals of the U.S. Presidential Election System. Cambridge, MA: Springer Science & Business Media, 2012. Print.
Leeser, Julian. “The Case for Primaries.” Quadrant 52.10 (2008): 68-74. Print.
Polsby, Nelson, Wildavsky, Aaron and David Hopkins. Presidential Elections: Strategies and Structures of American Politics. New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield, 2008. Print.
Schmidt, Steffen, Shelley, Mack, Bardes, Barbara, and Lynne Ford. American Government and Politics Today. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning, 2013. Print.
Witcover, Jules. No Way to Pick a President: How Money and Hired Guns Have Debased American Elections. New York, NY: Routledge, 2014. Print.
The first article is an opinion-piece appearing in the “LA Times” and it is titled “Money Won’t Buy you Votes”. The author of this article is Peter Schuck a law professor and an expert in government and political policies. According to Schuck, campaign-financing stakeholders are concerned that new developments in electoral guidelines will promote inequality in the United States’ politics. The concerns of the stakeholders arise from two Supreme Court rulings that allowed politicians more access to private campaign contributions.
However, the author of this article disputes the notion that money can influence election outcomes or corrupt democracy (Schuck 1). Schuck gives several reasons to support his argument. For instance, the author claims that the money that is used in election campaigns is not excessive.
In addition, the author notes that there are several other factors that contribute towards the inequality of elections other than campaign finances. The opinion writer claims that incumbency is the leading cause of election inequality and not campaign finances. According to the opinion article, the popular belief that private campaign financiers can hijack the electoral process has already been disputed by the existing empirical evidence.
The other opinion-article is written by Mark Linsky and it appears in the online issue of “The San Diego Union-Tribune”. Linsky’s article addresses the issue of campaign financing and it is titled “Want Clean Elections? Public Financing is the Answer”. The author of this article is a political science professor who is based in San Diego City College. According to the article, the problem of corruption arising from campaign financing during elections can be contained.
The author notes that while local administrations have been trying to manage the situation using locally enacted laws, recent Supreme Court decisions have reversed the gains of some of these legislations. The article’s main argument is that ditching large private donations in favor of public financing would help level the playground for all election contestants. The author addressees the recent initiative to have San Diego’s election contestants give up private campaign financing in favor of publicly acknowledged money (Linsky 1).
According to Linsky, the fears of compromised elections would be alleviated by the San Diego initiative that favors public campaign financing over private campaign financing. According to the author, the advantages of public financing include prompting transparency in the electoral process and offering the underfunded candidates a fair chance during elections. According to the article, the money issue is very prominent in the current electoral processes and eliminating it would allow candidates to focus on other important issues.
Comparison of the Two Articles
Both of these articles address the issue of campaign financing. However, while one article articulates the disadvantages of private campaign financing, the other one downplays the relevance of financing in election outcomes. Schuck’s opinion-article argues that the influence of ‘big money’ in political campaigns is overrated. According to Schuck, all the spending that occurs during election campaigns is necessary (Schuck 1). Therefore, no amount of campaign financing is enough to alter an election-outcome.
Linsky disputes this viewpoint by arguing that the issue of campaign financing is too prominent and it has the potential of influencing an election outcome. Linsky’s argument is that “big money has become central to the calculus of success at the polls and it is only logical to find a way to limit its corrupting influence” (Linsky 1). Both authors are aware of the fact that the Supreme Court acts as a major stumbling block towards the enactment of laws that control private campaign financing.
Nevertheless, while Linsky supports the move to enact measures to curb private financing, Schuck does not. The main difference in opinion between the two writers lies in the belief that money can have an impact on election outcomes. According to Linsky, “not just the best funded” should become leaders (Linsky 1). On the other hand, Schuck believes that “equal opportunity in politics is impossible to define or control…some candidates have less money but more of other assets” (Schuck 1).
Personal Reflection
Schuck’s article is more appealing to me in terms of its persuasiveness and argument. According to Schuck, it is unnecessary to give prominence to the issue of campaign financing while existing empirical data shows that ‘money cannot buy votes’ (Schuck 1).
Furthermore, the decision by the Supreme Court to allow candidates to continue sourcing money from private sources makes Schuck’s argument legal. On the other hand, Linsky’s article is more of ‘political rhetoric’ than it is a valid opinion-piece. Linsky seeks unorthodox alternatives to private financing but ignores the empirical evidence and legal opinions on the matter.
The issue of private financing has featured in the United States’ political policies for several years. Private campaign financiers have been accused of hijacking policies and promoting political corruption. However, even in the absence of private financiers, policies are still being hijacked and political corruption still exists.
In addition, election outcomes are influenced by a number of factors and not just money. However, none of these factors receives as much attention as private campaign-financing does. For instance, in the 2008 presidential campaign public financing easily surpassed private financing because there were other prominent underlying issues.
Works Cited
Linsky, Mark. “Want Clean Elections? Public Financing is the Answer”. The San Diego Union-Tribune. The San Diego Union-Tribune Newspaper, 2014. Web.
Schuck, Peter. “Money Won’t Buy you Votes”. The LA Times. The LA Times Newspaper, 2014. Web.
Based on this admittedly brief excerpt, how would you characterize President Griswold’s perspective on international relations? Is he a realist? A liberal? An identity theorist?
Whenever a new party or individual comes to power, it is certain that a new course of action is chartered for the nation. But, at the same time it also needs to be emphasized that political diatribe during the run up to the elections doesn’t necessarily reflect in totality on the decisions after a new President takes over. Efforts are made by the new incumbent to study and analyze the situation from an insider’s perspective, before making sweeping public announcements. Decisions involving international relations are the one’s which need to be handled much more diplomatically and cautiously. In this brief excerpt it appears as if President Griswold is still in an election campaign mood, trying to win over the confidence of voters. No head of state would dare to make an announcement involving waving of foreign debts, without actually having a detailed analysis of the country’s economic health. Therefore, with due respect to President Griswold’s noble intentions towards helping the poor nations, a decision involving waving off all international debts might actually result in undue burden on the US citizens in general. He is certainly not being realist and being unduly liberal in his approach. For sure, the impoverished nations of South America and Africa deserve their rightful place in the new global economy, but an economically weaker America also might result in adverse influence on the prevailing geo-political equations. If at all we need to wave off the debt, we can do it by entering into bilateral agreements with the specific nations, so that American interests also get due recognition.
Secondly, predicting that all nations will drop trade barriers to work towards a freer trade, can at best be termed as a day-dreaming exercise. The world community is divided into a number of blocks based on a number of parochial considerations that it will be preposterous to even think of uniformity in business and trade. In today context, when terrorist elements have left their imprints in many parts of the world, the immigration and cross border movement of people has come under strict scrutiny, in order to avoid security lapses. Therefore, an international regime involving free for all at the border is not a wise step. His Excellency President Griswold has four more years to work around, so there’s plenty of room for a reality check.
What political party do you think he probably belongs to? And how might he conceptualize of America’s national interest?
Well, if we go by the existing policies being propagated by the republicans and democrats, the two major constituents of American political spectrum, the views appear nowhere near to their stated positions. President Griswold probably belongs to a minority party with compulsive support from other major political parties. Major political stakeholders would never compromise their long term political fortune for short term public relation advantages. From the excerpt it appears that President Griswold is not able to conceptualize America’s national interest and requires the services of an able advisor.
Finally, what are some problems that you can find with President Griswold’s agenda? Is it realizable? Why or why not – and which perspective are YOU arguing from?
Problems with President Griswold’s agenda:
It appears full of shortsightedness, without any understanding of the prevailing international issues.
The agenda tends to ignore the domestic issues
The agenda does not reflect a consensual view on major issues, particularly involving the foreign relations
The agenda is certainly not realizable in the present world order.
These arguments are being advanced from the point of view of a responsible American citizen.
The debate over the credibility of sources has recently received significant attention in media, especially with regards to the recent US Presidential election that has encouraged some controversy regarding the differentiation between facts and “alternative facts”. Even though media and the Internet offer readers, viewers, and followers an abundance of reliable information, “alternative facts” have managed to gain much more public attention that the “boring truth.”
2016 Election: Alternative Facts and Changing Views
According to David Greenberg’s (2016) Politico article, the public considered both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump the most unreliable candidates: less than one-third of the CBS poll stated that Clinton was trustworthy, with Trump having similar results on reliability. The campaign held by Trump has become one of the most popular due to the trail of falsehoods that can be considered “legendary” in the journalistic pastime (Greenberg 2016).
Among the popular false assertions of Trump, the assertion that American Muslims celebrated the fall of the Twin Towers, the overestimation of the sizes of crowds at rallies, as well as the false claims regarding the personal net worth of $10 billion are the most prominent. Moreover, when Lippman and Samuelson (2016) conducted a weeklong fact check of Trump’s speeches, they found that there was roughly one “alternative fact” for every five minutes.
While the majority of politicians usually stretch the truth, giving momentum to the practice of political fact-checking long before the 2016 election, the current President of the United States went much farther than the usual truth stretching, with the chain of “alternative facts” helping to support one of the most unexpected and quick victories in the history of the US presidential campaigns. If to look at the examples of the “alternative facts” presented by Donald Trump, the following citations stand out the most:
“Really they’ve shut Christianity down” (cited in Lippman & Samuelson 2016, para. 7). According to the survey conducted by Pew Research Center (2016), 70.6% of Americans are Christian, with 25.4% of them being Evangelical Protestants and 20% Catholic, which goes against Mr. Trump’s statement about the Obama administration shutting Christianity down.
With regards to the role of the Gulf States in mitigating the military conflict in Syria: “The Gulf States have so much money, they’re not spending anything. By the way, they’re not taking anybody, they’re not taking, and they’re not spending” (cited in Lippman & Samuelson 2016, para. 15). In reality, at a London aid conference that took place in February 2016, Gulf States pledged to donate at least $537 million to help mitigate the conflict. Moreover, the United Arab Emirates has accepted around ten thousand Syrian refugees since the beginning of the civil war in 2011 (Martinez 2015).
“I don’t settle lawsuits. I don’t do it” (cited in Lippman & Samuelson 2016, para. 15). Despite this claim, in 2013, Mr. Trump did settle a lawsuit with more than a hundred of prospective condo buyers who lost million dollars when the Trump-branded condo project failed in Baja, California (Pfeifer 2013).
Contrast to Trump, Hillary Clinton was not fabricating facts; however, her campaign was riddled with the sense of inauthenticity, a perception that the candidate was selling herself as someone she was not (whether a feminist, an LGBT rights supporter, or a fighter for the well-being of the working class) (Greenberg 2016). Among the most prominent contradictions is Clinton’s position on gay marriage.
In 2004, when speaking in the US Senate, Clinton stated that she believed that “marriage is not just a bond, but a sacred bond between a man and a woman” (cited in Alexa 2016, para. 2). However, during the 2016 Election, Clinton positioned herself as a pro-LGBT candidate. Also, when serving as Secretary of State in 2012, Clinton strongly supported the free trade agreement (the Trans-pacific Partnership). However, in 2016, she could not afford to lose voters who were upset over the Partnership. Conveniently, Clinton changed her position to capture a larger electorate.
Therefore, just by conducting a fact check of politicians’ statements, one can come up with a long list of “alternative facts” that were not supported by credible and reliable sources. Similarly, politicians were found to conveniently “flip-flop” their positions on serious matters just to remain relevant in the society with current “mainstream” views. Both candidates in the 2016 election showed some dishonesty when it comes to gaining more votes, and misinformation along with the “alternative facts” were effective tools for misleading the public and getting the support of potential voters.
It remains unclear why in this day and age, where technologies guide every sphere of human relationships and daily interactions, politicians can still get away with spreading false information and persuading the public to vote for them. According to the research article conducted by Metzger and Flanagin (2013), digital media have profoundly changed the information landscape. This means that any information can be either corroborated or disproved, which should have been done with the statements given my Mr. Trump as well as the inconsistencies in Mrs. Clinton’s positions regarding important social, economic, and political issues.
Importance of Source Reliability
The good news is that the Internet is a rich and powerful source of help, information, and expertise, and anyone looking to fact-check someone else for telling the truth can use this tool to their advantage. On the other hand, the bad news is that the Internet currently holds an unlimited amount of information, and supply of expertise increases with regards to every subject, so it becomes unclear which expertise should be trusted, and which should be disregarded.
The primary concern for the general public is how do they find correct sources of information and determine which are reliable. In the case of the 2016 election, there was an outburst of false stories (“fake news”) circulating on social media that were targeted at harming the reputation of one of the presidential candidates.
The problem with such news from unreliable sources was that the public believed in them, especially with the most popular stories being directly related to candidates, not to mention that the majority of fake stories favored Trump over Clinton (Allcott & Gentzjow 2017). According to the research article by Allcott and Gentzjow (2017), if to put the fake news, false statements, and the presence of unreliable sources together, it can be hypothesized that Trump would not have had such a success during the campaign.
To a large extent, unreliable and not credible sources that could have an impact on the public opinion are gaining incredible importance because of a number of reasons. First, the barriers to entering the industry of media are very low because it is currently cheap and easy to set up websites and because it is relatively uncomplicated to monetize the web content by employing advertising platforms. Second, the Internet and social media platforms are well-suited for distributing lies and fake news. Third, according to the poll conducted by Gallup, there is a steady decline in the public’s trust in mass media, which, in turn, contributes to the rise in popularity of social media news websites (Swift 2016).
When speaking of the importance of using credible and reliable sources in the modern informational environment, it is hard to disregard the events that occurred in the course of the 2016 US Presidential election, especially the lies both candidates were spreading. Despite the fact that reputable media sources fact-checked some statements, the impact of the investigation was not as prominent as the impact from the media sources that followed the route of sensationalist reporting instead of laying out the facts. Furthermore, because the entire world watched the 2016 election envelop, it is not surprising that unreliable and unsupported information reached the masses – because it had a greater impact on the public compared to the “boring truth.”
Unfortunately, the sphere of politics has never been characterised by a lot of truthful statements since during presidential campaigns and elections, candidates usually tend to over-exaggerate some figures or make generalised statements to capture the attention of potential voters. Therefore, it is important to be cautious of those statements and opt for reliable sources of information that have sustained a good reputation and developed trusting relationships with readers or followers. Overall, the 2016 election shed light on the issue of source reliability and credibility that has never been as important as today.
Reference List
Alexa, A 2016, Clinton contradictions: Hillary’s ever-changing policy positions. 2017. Web.
Allcott, H & Gentzkow, M 2017, ‘Social media and fake news in the 2016 election’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 211-236.
Metzger, M & Flanagin, A 2013, ‘Credibility and trust of information in online environments: the use of cognitive heuristics’, Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 59, pp. 210-220.
In developed states, it is assumed that individuals base their electoral decision on rationality, and as such, they select their political leaders based on their ideologies, as well as the goals and objectives that they are to achieve. In developing states, on the other hand, the voting behavior of an individual is highly determined by tribalism and ethnicity. It is a result of this fact that the electoral process of most African states is usually regarded as an ethnic census.
However, there are African states such as Ghana whose voting patterns are not entirely determined by ethnicity. This paper will thus critically analyze the election trends of Ghana since 1992 to determine whether ethnicity is the key determinant of electoral trends.
Ethnicity and Political Environment in Ghana
Like many African nations, Ghana is made up of numerous ethnic group that can be subdivided into the following 5 major groups:
Ethnic Group
Composition (%)
Akan
44
Mole-Dagbani
15.9
Ewe
13
Ga-Dangme
3.7
Gume
3.5
The Rest
11.5
Even though there are regions that comprise a high proportion of one ethnic group, there is no region in Ghana that is ethnically homogenous. After the 1992 referendum in Ghana, a new constitution was enacted that has played a critical role in discouraging and eliminating ethnicity in Ghanaian politics. For instance, it is a mandatory requirement for all political parties to develop a national character.
Parties are also not expected to base their membership on ethnic, religious, or regional affiliations. Political parties are also expected to have branches in every region of the state, and at the same time, their committees should comprise of members from all the regions of the nation. These are key provisions as they ensure that the support of political parties come from all the regions of the state. Furthermore, these provisions also ensure that the visions, goals, and objectives of political parties have a national interest and not the interests of specific groups or regions.
Historically, the foundation of political parties in Ghana was based on factors other than ethnicity. For instance, the United Gold Coast Convention (UGGC) founded in 1947 aimed at emulating westernized ideology in a bid on ensuring that control of the government is under the people of Ghana through legal and constitutional means. This party was mainly comprised of businessmen, merchants, and intellectuals. Founded in 1949 was the Convention People’s Party (CPP) that was led by Kwame Nkurumah in a bid to fight for the rights of workers, women, and students in the nation.
From a critical point of view, it is evident that the main purpose of the early political parties was first to ensure that Ghana is an independent and sovereign state in addition to achieving political, economic, and social stability. It is as a result of lack of achieving these goals that this nation has experienced four successful military coupes and rules under one-party until when the constitution was amended in 1992 that led to the reintroduction of multiparty politics in the nation and the springing up of new political parties such as the National Democratic Congress (NDC) and the New Patriotic Party (NPP) in Ghana’s Fourth Republic.
As discussed earlier, the constitution of Ghana has developed provisions that discourage the operation of political parties in Ghana along ethnic lines. However, this does not deter voters from voting along ethnic lines, especially with regards to the presidential elections between 1992 and 2008. Much more specifically, it has always been assumed that the National Democratic Congress (NDC) is dominated by the Ewe while the New Patriotic Party (NPP) is dominated by the Akan/Asante group where they gain a lot of support in the Volta and Ashanti regions respectively in the elections between 1992 and 2004.
This trend was mainly because the Volta region is mainly dominated by the Ewe and the Ashanti region by the Akan/Asante group. It is perhaps due to this fact that voting in the African States is always considered as an ethnic census exercise.
Even though the voting trends seem to indicate that voter behavior in Ghana is ethnic driven, there is numerous evidence that shows otherwise. Running for the presidency under the People’s National Convention (PNC) party during the 1992 elections, Dr. Hilla Limann, who was the president during Ghana’s Third Republic, failed to gather majority votes from the Upper West, Upper East, and Northern regions even though he had strong cultural and linguistic connections with these regions.
Furthermore, NDC lost the monopoly it had in using the media and state facilities for conducting campaigns that led to very close election results during the 2008 elections after winning only by 40,000 votes from a total of 9 million cast votes nationwide. This is attributed mainly to the fact that the opposition, led by NPP used radio stations and other forms of media to air their grievances towards the NDC regime, hence acting as a favorable alternative for voters.
Conclusion
This paper has clearly shown the voting behavior in Ghana since 1992. While the presence of ethnicity in voter decisions cannot be overlooked, it is evident that the decision of voters in Ghana is determined by other socio-economic issues such as economic stability, employment rates, social development, and good governance. Therefore, voting in Ghana should not be considered as ethnic censuses as a process through which voters exercise their democratic rights to choose leaders who will build and bring positive change to the nation.
The Labour Party is a left faction political organization and presently the runs the administrative government in the United Kingdom. Established during the early years of the 20th century, it has been the most important left wing party of in England, Scotland and Wales then onwards. However, Northern Ireland is considered to be the party’s stronghold where it has only of late started organizing its operations again.
The Labour party outperformed the Liberal Party as the most significant opponent to the Conservative party during the start of the 1920s. It has served several terms in the government of United Kingdom, initially in the form of minority governments during the years 1924 and 1929-31, then as a subordinate ally in the wartime alliance from 1940 to 1945, and later formed a majority government, during the terms in 1945-51 and in 1964-70. The Labour party once again formed the government in 1974-79. (Curtice, 117-118)
However, this time it was with an uncertain and dilapidated majority. The party retorted back with a resounding victory claiming a substantial 179-seat majority during the 1997 general elections with Tony Blair steering the party to a triumph. It was the party’s first general election success since October 1974 and the first general election after 1970 wherein it had surpassed 40% of the popular vote mark. The party’s overwhelming preponderance in the House of Commons was to some extent slenderized to 167 during the 2001 general election and more significantly brought down to 66 in 2005. (Hindmoor, 411)
Background
UK general election: 2001
The UK general election, 2001 was held on 7 June 2001 and the phrase “the quiet landslide” was coined by the media to denote the Labour Party victory. The Labour party claimed its second succeeding supposed ‘landslide victory’ consecutively, upholding its majority position from the preceding election. Tony Blair emerged as the first Labour party prime ministerial candidate to be triumphant in sufficient number of seats to claim his stake to a complete second successive term in government formation. The Labour party surfaced as the victor with an overall majority of 167 seats by popular vote. (Curtice, 119)
However this overall majority was slightly reduced by 12 seats with the party obtaining 179 seats in the previous general elections. The election process was also noticeable due to the evident voter indifference which led to the turnout falling to a mere 59%, the grimmest from the time of the Coupon Election in 1918. All through the course of the election the Labour Party had sustained a considerable lead in the opinion and exit polls and the outcome was believed to be quite certain. However, the low voter turnout hurt the Labour party the most with the party loosing out on approximately 2.5% of its vote share and 6 seats. (Curtice, 120)
UK general election: 2005
The United Kingdom general election of 2005 was held on Thursday, 5 May 2005 to vote for members to the House of Commons. The Labour Party under the leadership of Tony Blair claimed its third consecutive success in the general elections. However, the major concern of the part was that this time they emerged with a significantly abridged overall majority of merely 66. (Curtice, 120)
The Labour party’s strength decline: 2001 to 2005
The Labour party’s strength declined the most during the time period ranging from 2001 to 2005. In the 2005 general elections had changed to a large extent since the 2001 elections. During the run up to the elections of 2001, the Labour party had had the swing towards them. The incumbent Labour government boasted of a healthy economy and a considerable number of voters identified with the Labour party. The party’s stance was preferred on quite a few key subjects. Even though Labour prime ministerial candidate, Tony Blair, was not overwhelmingly popular, the mass voting public was much more in his favour as compared to his principal opponent, Conservative leader, William Hague. (Hindmoor, 405)
After four years in office, and in the run up to the 2005 general elections the blend of issues had changed considerably. In addition Blair’s image was now considered to be quite damaging not only by political adversaries, but by scores of workers in the Labour party itself. Various opinion polls demonstrated the fact that Labour had merely a slender lead over the Conservative party amongst the body of voters all together. As a matter of fact at the initial phases of the campaign the Conservative party claimed a slightly ahead status than the Labour party among possible voters. Right from the beginning of the 2005 the momentum seemed to be swinging away from the Labour party.
Impact of the 9/11 attacks
The 9/11 attacks instigated a sequence of events that transformed Britain’s political arena. Even though its effects on party support were ephemeral, the dreadful attack surfaced as the primary support for those who asserted that Saddam Hussein’s rogue administration in Iraq ought to be a key target in America’s war on terrorism. As deliberation relating to the understanding of unification with the United States in a “coalition of the willing” in opposition to Iraq deepened, the Labour party support slowly but surely declined. Prime Minister Blair, the most important advocate of British involvement in the alliance, infuriated the populace outside of and—possibly with more significance—inside the Labour party as well. (Curtice, 126)
In the eyes of many of his countrymen, by being resolute on the issue of using British troops to overthrow the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, Blair had proven himself to be a pet of a pro-war American leadership. The war and the involvement of Great Britain as a key ally did not go well with the European faction as well as the common population of the United Kingdom. With events leading up to the war plunging into a high near the beginning of 2003, anti-war activists staged enormous remonstrations in London and in other main British cities and towns as well.
However, these efforts did not have any effect of Britain’s decision to join the war. With the commencement of hostility against Iraq during the month of March 2003 the situation shaped a sizable downfall effect on Blair’s party. With number of casualties swelling up and weapons of mass destruction still not found, the war turned out to be progressively more ostracized and criticism of the administration’s political decisions increased significantly. (Hindmoor, 402-403)
Suicide of Dr. David Kelly
Another event took place in mid-July 2003 which should be mentioned as it had serious implications for the Labour party as a whole. Controversy over the Iraq argument stridently deepened whilst British weapons expert, Dr. David Kelly, committed suicide. Kelly, a member of staff of the Ministry of Defence, had been branded by the administration as the person acting as a key source for a BBC news report that the chief-of-staff, Alistair Campbell, had spiced-up information relating to Saddam Hussein’s competence to possess biological weapons of mass destruction. In the backdrop of the disputation involved in the suicide case, Labour support gradually tumbled. A sovereign judicial investigation later cleared the administration of any misconduct.
However, several voters of the United Kingdom viewed this report as a complete cover up. The war had developed into an unambiguous detested issue with opinion polls on a regular basis delineating that up to 70% of the common mass were not in favour of Britain’s involvement in Iraqi war. (Curtice, 126)
Pre 2005 general elections
In the events leading up to the 2005 general elections, Iraq emerged as one of numerous issues which had a small or practically no resonance with the voting public four years earlier. As reinforced by various other public polls, when requested to make out the most significant issue that the country faces, virtually half of the respondents, standing at 48%, in the 2005 British Election Study (BES) pre-election survey referred to issues such as transgression, immigration, Iraq or the terror campaign. (Hindmoor, 408)
Merely 6% had alluded to these problems in the run up to the 2001elections. On the contrary, the weight laid on social services such as health issues; educational facilities, etc. were to a large extent abridged. This was a significant downfall from 38% to 25%. (Curtice, 124) Public service concerns were by tradition a Labour strong point, and their weakened saliency did not bode well for the Labour party. Also posing an awkward challenge for the party was the actuality that just one individual amongst 10 agreed that economic issues were a top priority. Ever since the Labour party had assumed power in the year 1997, Great Britain had the benefit of a fortuitous amalgamation of continual economic escalation pooled with low inflation rates with unemployment not being a major issue.
Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown was extensively accredited for the blissful economic conditions, and lots of electorates supposed that Labour, as compared to the Conservatives, were better suited to the job of handling the nation’s economy. Nevertheless, the new-fangled 2005 mix of issues was such that it was likely that it was going to be complicated for the Labour advocators to translate their reliability on the economic issue into consent of the common voters. (Hindmoor, 417)
Conclusion
It is clear from the above discussion that the state of affairs in United Kingdom’s political landscape has drastically changed since 1997 when the Labour Party upward rise was being staged. There have been various issues which have not gone down well with the party’s traditional vote base. In particular, Blair’s adamant decision of allying with America despite the anti-war sentiments of the nation hurt his image. Apart from these issues such as the policies of the incumbent administration concerning immigration, crime etc have somewhat offset the goodwill they earned from sound economic and health policies. The decreased voter turnout in 2001 and 2005 general elections have hurt the Labour party the most. This voter apathy seems to imply that Labour identifiers are not pleased with party’s mode of working and neither do they have a viable alternative in the form of the Conservative Party.
Works Cited
Curtice, John. “New Labour, New Protest? How the Liberal Democrats Profited from Blair’s Mistakes.” Political Quarterly 78.1 (2007): 117-127.
Hindmoor, Andrew. “New Labour and An Economic Theory of Democracy.” The British Journal of Politics & International Relations 7.3 (2006): 402-417.
The United States is the leading economy in the whole world for a long time now. After the word war, Europe and Japan have overpowered economically hence the United States of America grew up economically than most parts of the world. However, for the last 20 years, Japan and Europe have posed a stiff challenge since their economies are coming up.
Discussion
In terms of democracy, the United States goes by the majority system where citizens vote for their leaders at all levels by use of the majority rule of over 50% of the votes. On the other hand, Germany uses both the majority and the proportional system to elect their members of parliament. The German government parties choose the person to run for a parliamentary seat, while in the United States it is the congress that chooses the person to run for the seat.
In the U.S freedom and security are very essential as part of the welfare of its citizens just like in Germany and Japan where they are very important. A welfare system promotes the freedom of the people as it enables them to live without fear. Germany emphasizes security while the United States emphasizes much on freedom. Giving a bad expression on an American company’s products on the web may lead to someone being prosecuted by the company lawyer through the judicial system. Homeless people in the U.S do not have the freedom of speech (Powell & Hendricks, 2009).
The US Supreme Court has ordered that local laws that do not allow individuals to ask for money are constitutional. Also, someone may be sacked for no reason which reduces the freedom of speech in the workplace. Germans have more concerns about security as compared to Americans as someone may be sacked from the job after being given enough reason that quantifies his or her sacking and after a long time of notice. There is no freedom of traveling by the U.S citizens such as traveling to Cuba was banned.
Sex education is emphasized in Europe more than in the United States and Japan. Killers and murderers in Germany are put in prison for fifteen years but in the United States, most murderers are put in prison for life. The juniors who commit murder in the U.S and are of age 13 and above are put in prison for life just like the adults. But in Germany, children below 14 years are not punished but those over 18 years are treated as adults. Japan is much like the United States. In the United States, the ownership of homes has gone down, this is a sign that there is inflation in the economy since it has reduced the people’s living standards. The U.S is more in debt than Europe and Japan.
The democratic deficit is a situation where the citizens of a country cannot freely elect their leader without being influenced by other people especially the senior people in the society. The European nation has a democratic deficit system because of the way it operates. It combines both the legislative and government and the government does not have democracy. Some countries such as Maastricht and Amsterdam have good treaties which include the democratic legitimacy in way of operation like appointment is done in the parliament.
In Europe the political control is done by the executive-centered system which comprises the European commission and council, these bodies do not take part in parliament thus their actions are rarely known and might not be the wishes of the citizens. There is no control over economic integration by the sovereign state.
The number of voters who turn out in Europe during elections is very low this is because the citizens are against the fact that the new leaders will be of so much control if the Lisbon Treaty is voted for by citizens on the referendum. The Lisbon Treaty provides the assembly legislative control in policies like security and justice in which the people are against it since it lacks democracy. The system of the assembly is dictatorial which hinders the way people’s views are to be represented through the national assembly (Bekkers, 2007).
Conclusion
The citizens do not elect their representative directly they vote for the party which will later choose the members of the parliament. The voters do not feel a direct connection with their representatives. This leads to a low turnout of the voters. The people’s welfare is of great concern hence the government should have in place policies that promote the citizens’ associations among themselves and the various institutions in the country. Democracy is very important hence it should be enhanced across all the systems in place.
References
Bekkers, J.J.M. (2007). Governance and the democratic deficit: assessing the democratic legitimacy of governance practices. 5th ed. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.
Powell, J. & Hendricks, J. (2009). The Welfare State in Post-Industrial Society: A Global Perspective. 4th ed. Heidelberg: Springer.