http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/analysis/toons/2007/05/12/lang/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/analysis/toons/2007/10/26/mitchell/index.html
Cartoons are often times funny, but the funniest part about them is how often they are true. The Republican party during the Newt years prided itself on loyalty and a party that was very unified. What happened??? (I am in no way defending the action that Newt took). With candidates such as McCain and Guiliani, the Republican party is expirencing a serious lack of loyalty to the party platform.
With the way the polls have been looking, Rudy Guiliani is leading many of the popular polls. This must leave the Republicans shaking in their boots. Rudy feels as obligated to follow the Republican platform as Bush feels obligated to pass Congress' bills. Will candidates like this eventually lead to the end of the two party system?
I personally think this idea is far fetched. However, if we continue to get candidates who do not feel tied to their parties, and instead move toward a more center platform that accomodates more people, will the parties have the strength in government that they do now? We know that candidate centered elections undermine the party system, but is it possible to go a step further and say that it could lead to the end of the party system? I think it is a possibility.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Assessments are fun
Many people in America, including myself, find the American Party System to be... oh... what's the word... corrupt. Not only are parties unresponsive to the people, but it is ok that they are because no one does anything to stop it. Although I find a lot of things wrong with the system, the fact that they are not responsible to the people is what angers me the most.
In our text, page 220, there is a quote by the APSA from their Article "Toward a More Responsible Two-Party System." This quote says that there must be more than one party because one party will not be responsible to the people. We have two parties, but this does not assure us responsibility! Responsibility can only be achieved through honesty and hard work. Many politcians are seen as "slimmy" individuals who will do anything to get elected. Once in office, the promises for change, for "a new tomorrow" are rarely met. We need politicians who will stand up for what they promise.
We need to look no farther than the Bush administration to understand just exactly how IRresponsible the system is currently. My favorite topic to talk about in this area is presidental signing statements. For those who do not know... signing statements are where the president can interpret a bill passed by Congress (after he has already signed it into law), comment on its constitutionality, or simply write how he feels about the bill. President Bush has used more than any president in history, and more than many of them combined. Instead of using his veto power, Bush signs popular legislation into law-such as the McCain torture ban-and then says something to the effect of "The executive branch does not have to follow this." HOW MUCH MORE IRRESPONSIBLE CAN YOU GET?
Another reason I think the American Party System is corrupt is the number of Americans who do not feel represented by our government. In other democracies around the world, many more parties are represented in their government because of their system of proportional representation. This allows voices to be heard beyond two parties; it represents more of the public. Instead of having to choose between the 'lesser of two evils', people can support politicians that have the same ideals and same policy prefernces. In our winner take all system, you are either on the winning side or the losing side; nearly half of our population is unsatisfied with its representatives.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060113.html
In our text, page 220, there is a quote by the APSA from their Article "Toward a More Responsible Two-Party System." This quote says that there must be more than one party because one party will not be responsible to the people. We have two parties, but this does not assure us responsibility! Responsibility can only be achieved through honesty and hard work. Many politcians are seen as "slimmy" individuals who will do anything to get elected. Once in office, the promises for change, for "a new tomorrow" are rarely met. We need politicians who will stand up for what they promise.
We need to look no farther than the Bush administration to understand just exactly how IRresponsible the system is currently. My favorite topic to talk about in this area is presidental signing statements. For those who do not know... signing statements are where the president can interpret a bill passed by Congress (after he has already signed it into law), comment on its constitutionality, or simply write how he feels about the bill. President Bush has used more than any president in history, and more than many of them combined. Instead of using his veto power, Bush signs popular legislation into law-such as the McCain torture ban-and then says something to the effect of "The executive branch does not have to follow this." HOW MUCH MORE IRRESPONSIBLE CAN YOU GET?
Another reason I think the American Party System is corrupt is the number of Americans who do not feel represented by our government. In other democracies around the world, many more parties are represented in their government because of their system of proportional representation. This allows voices to be heard beyond two parties; it represents more of the public. Instead of having to choose between the 'lesser of two evils', people can support politicians that have the same ideals and same policy prefernces. In our winner take all system, you are either on the winning side or the losing side; nearly half of our population is unsatisfied with its representatives.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060113.html
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Voter Turnout
http://www.idea.int/publications/vt/upload/Voter%20turnout.pdf
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/closerace1.html
This week, we focused a lot of time on voter turnout in America, why it is so low, and things we could possibly do to increase voter turnout. With that in mind, I thought it would be interesting to see if the United States is the only country suffering from a lack of voter turnout. As it turns out, according to the website I found, voter turnout around the world has been going down since about the 1980s. With this in mind, I think it is especially important to understand the reasons why.
The first explanation given by our book is that there is a lack of competition among candidates. Although this holds true for many elections in the House and a number of elections in the Senate, I would disagree that there is a lack of competition in Presidential elections. Especially recently, Presidential elections tend to be very close, as the second website I attached shows. Using this information, I would disagree with this argument as to why voter turnout is so low.
Another reason the book gives for low voter turnout is the expansion of the electorate. After women were given their right to vote, it took many years for them to finally use their right. This would obviously cause a drop in voter turnout, but this was decades ago, so we can eliminate that explanation. In 1971 the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18. Young voters, age 18-25, make up a large percent of the population, but a fraction of them vote. This is an obvious problem for voter turnout. However, I do not personally believe that young adults not voting is alone the reason why voter turnout is so low.
I believe that the number one reason why voter turnout is so low is because of the wasted vote logic. The wasted vote logic is the notion that people do not vote because they do not think their vote matters, they do not think by voting anything they want to change, will. This leads, in turn, to people losing interest in politics as well, which could be another reason for low voter turnout. People age 18-25 especially feel like their voices are not heard in politics because we do not have much power, so this age group is especially vulnerable to wasted vote logic. I find it interesting to ask nonvoters why they chose not to vote. Some people respond with "I didn't have time", "I didn't know where", "I didn't register" (even though Wisconsin is same day registration), and the list continues... but I always seem to find it amazing how many people respond "What does it matter... my vote sure doesn't".
So... my proposal to increase voter turnout is to make the public realize that their vote really does matter. To do this, I think that we need to have parties that involve the public more, and have candidates who actually listen to what the public says... even after they get elected. Making elected officials more responsible to the people, I believe, would increase the voter turnout in America because people would feel like their voices are being heard... rather than Washington being run by the 'political machines and elites', people would feel like they run Washington. It is time to put more power in the hands of the people, and less power in the hands of the elites and political machines.
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/closerace1.html
This week, we focused a lot of time on voter turnout in America, why it is so low, and things we could possibly do to increase voter turnout. With that in mind, I thought it would be interesting to see if the United States is the only country suffering from a lack of voter turnout. As it turns out, according to the website I found, voter turnout around the world has been going down since about the 1980s. With this in mind, I think it is especially important to understand the reasons why.
The first explanation given by our book is that there is a lack of competition among candidates. Although this holds true for many elections in the House and a number of elections in the Senate, I would disagree that there is a lack of competition in Presidential elections. Especially recently, Presidential elections tend to be very close, as the second website I attached shows. Using this information, I would disagree with this argument as to why voter turnout is so low.
Another reason the book gives for low voter turnout is the expansion of the electorate. After women were given their right to vote, it took many years for them to finally use their right. This would obviously cause a drop in voter turnout, but this was decades ago, so we can eliminate that explanation. In 1971 the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18. Young voters, age 18-25, make up a large percent of the population, but a fraction of them vote. This is an obvious problem for voter turnout. However, I do not personally believe that young adults not voting is alone the reason why voter turnout is so low.
I believe that the number one reason why voter turnout is so low is because of the wasted vote logic. The wasted vote logic is the notion that people do not vote because they do not think their vote matters, they do not think by voting anything they want to change, will. This leads, in turn, to people losing interest in politics as well, which could be another reason for low voter turnout. People age 18-25 especially feel like their voices are not heard in politics because we do not have much power, so this age group is especially vulnerable to wasted vote logic. I find it interesting to ask nonvoters why they chose not to vote. Some people respond with "I didn't have time", "I didn't know where", "I didn't register" (even though Wisconsin is same day registration), and the list continues... but I always seem to find it amazing how many people respond "What does it matter... my vote sure doesn't".
So... my proposal to increase voter turnout is to make the public realize that their vote really does matter. To do this, I think that we need to have parties that involve the public more, and have candidates who actually listen to what the public says... even after they get elected. Making elected officials more responsible to the people, I believe, would increase the voter turnout in America because people would feel like their voices are being heard... rather than Washington being run by the 'political machines and elites', people would feel like they run Washington. It is time to put more power in the hands of the people, and less power in the hands of the elites and political machines.
Friday, October 5, 2007
How about the little guys?
I'm not just falling back on this question, I think that the minority party is an interesting thing to research because its important... how much do they really matter? What is the role of the minority party in a democracy?
First of all, I think that minority parties become more important when the majority party isn't as large. For instance, in the Senate currently, the democrats are the majority party, but by less than two seats. If they controlled 10 more seats, they would have a much stronger majority and the role of the minority party would be weaker. I believe this is true because as the majority gets larger, it requires fewer votes from the minority party in order for a bill to be passed, or for a veto to be overridden (if that's a word). Larger minority parties force compromise between the two parties.
With that said, I believe that the minority party, even when it is small, is very important to a democracy. First of all, it gives a voice to the electorate who's party may not have won the majority vote. Secondly, it helps to shape policy with its votes in the legislature. Thirdly, it helps fight corruption. With two parties our system is plagued with corruption, can you imagine what it would be like if there were no minority party to "check" the actions of the majority? I believe that in this sense, and the others listed above, the minority party has a very important role in a democracy.
Our book points out that the length of time a party has been the minority plays an important role, but I would like to disagree with that. I think that regardless of how many years a party is the minority, it is still going to push its policy and fight to be elected. If that were the case, Republicans would have given up on running for House seats back in the 1950s, since it was nearly 30 years before they took control again (according the graph on page 147 of the book).
Do you think that the minority party is important in democracy?
First of all, I think that minority parties become more important when the majority party isn't as large. For instance, in the Senate currently, the democrats are the majority party, but by less than two seats. If they controlled 10 more seats, they would have a much stronger majority and the role of the minority party would be weaker. I believe this is true because as the majority gets larger, it requires fewer votes from the minority party in order for a bill to be passed, or for a veto to be overridden (if that's a word). Larger minority parties force compromise between the two parties.
With that said, I believe that the minority party, even when it is small, is very important to a democracy. First of all, it gives a voice to the electorate who's party may not have won the majority vote. Secondly, it helps to shape policy with its votes in the legislature. Thirdly, it helps fight corruption. With two parties our system is plagued with corruption, can you imagine what it would be like if there were no minority party to "check" the actions of the majority? I believe that in this sense, and the others listed above, the minority party has a very important role in a democracy.
Our book points out that the length of time a party has been the minority plays an important role, but I would like to disagree with that. I think that regardless of how many years a party is the minority, it is still going to push its policy and fight to be elected. If that were the case, Republicans would have given up on running for House seats back in the 1950s, since it was nearly 30 years before they took control again (according the graph on page 147 of the book).
Do you think that the minority party is important in democracy?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)