Political Machines

A majority, held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it, does, of necessity, fly to anarchy or to despotism” (Basler,

Kaitlyn Glover AP US Government Period 1 How Democratic is the American Constitution? Critical Book Review In his book How Democratic is the American Constitution? Robert A. Dahl evaluates the scope of democracy that the American Constitution creates and compares our ultimate governing document to those of multiple other democratic nations around the world. His goal is not to change the Constitution itself but rather to change people’s perception of it.

Counties are the largest political subdivision of local government, and their primary purpose is to administer state laws and regulations (Donovan 383). Counties such as Alachua

“Party Games: The Art of Stealing Elections in the Late-Nineteenth-Century United States,” written by Mark Wahlgren Summers, discusses the elements of trickery and manipulation utilized by Democrats, Republican, and Populists during the Gilded Age in efforts to get their party’s candidate(s) into office. As the text points out, “the broad range of party tricks obscured the people’s will, occasionally thwarted it, and cast a moral cloud over the winner’s title” (425). All of these political schemes that the parties in the Gilded Age were privy to, basically made a mockery of the democracy in the United States. Instead of being represented by the people, America was represented by a bunch of scoundrels, also known as politicians.

Through the fundamental ideals of the founding fathers the United States government has been sculpted into a variation of a democracy influenced by Madison, Jefferson, and Hamilton. These men each provided concepts and qualities of their respective government that are directly reflected in the constitution and the bill of rights. Although, conflicting principals can be identified through each individual’s interpretation of a democracy, there is no doubt Madison, Jefferson, and Hamilton structured our government into what it is today. Madison described a democracy in which wealth needed to be equally distributed among the people in order to function.

"How Democratic is the American Constitution ?", by political scientist Robert A. Dahl is a short book that questions the ethical and political issues in America 's Constitution and the structure of the United States government. The book consists of a series of abstract lectures composed by Dahl that reflects on how the American Constitution affects modern society. While this short book brings out plentiful knowledge on the American system , it does not go any deeper into those general ideas for it is only about 200 pages. However, it is still a knowledgeable book to introduce the fundamentals of American government and political science and why American citizens should uphold the Constitution. Dahl introduces the book of how the Founding

Madison rhapsodizes at length about the dangers of factionalism under majority rule; he claims that “popular government [...] enables [the majority] to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest, both the public good and the rights of other citizens”, thus insinuating that popular rule in a system where “the causes of factionalism cannot be prevented” will ultimately devastate both the working class’s public good and the elite class’s private right (10). This fear mongering over majority rule acts as a ringing endorsement of the alternative: minority, or elite, political dominance. To ease the minds of his readers, Madison then declares that the working class of the new republic will be too spread out and otherwise divided to oppose the just government established by the upper class–or, in his words, lower classes will be “rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression” against the elite (10). In this way, Madison promotes upper class rule as a means to protect American liberty, believing that the people at large were unfit to establish this protection themselves–and that they had neither the intelligence nor the unity to carry out their corrupt schemes under properly conducted elite

The creation of the United States is considered by many to be a great experiment in democracy. After the War of 1812, America was filled with tremendous nationalism and as the young country grew, many nations look to it as both an inspiration and a warning. Americans seemed united behind their president James Monroe, who was elected in 1816 and then ran uncontested for his second term in 1820. However, even during this time there were many discussions and arguments within the nation’s own government regarding the benefits of democracy.

During the time when reform movements were common (1825-1850), people stated the following statement. “Reform movements in the United States sought to expand democratic ideals.” The only question that remains from this statement is if this statement still holds up to its claim. The answer to this question is a definite yes where reform movements did sought to expand democratic ideals. These ideals can range from the common good to egalitarianism and justice.

Political machines were spread throughout the country focusing mainly on the urban areas where they could influence the most people

al., 2015). In U.S. context, pluralism is often regarded as one of the hallmarks of America democracy. This is because in the United States, pluralism ensures the existence and maintenance of diverse group identities. It also implies that various groups in U.S. society have mutual respect for one another’s identity, a respect that allows minorities to express their own identity without suffering prejudice or hostility. In the United States, pluralism is thus more an ideal than a reality (Norman, 2015; Schaefer, 2000; Shaw et.

After pluralism, there two more important notions which are needed to mentioned in order to understand what Mouffe’s conceptualisation of democracy. Power and antagonism and

The power which comes with being able to set agendas is one of the greatest assets in being able to dictate a given political situation by way that the base of power lies with those who have the ability of "non-decision making" (Lukes 1974). Stated by Bachrach and Baratz (1963) opposing the pluralist view, it is the behaviourist view, that "power can take certain issues out of the process of decision-making, making it forever inaccessible to the public agenda" (Lukes 2005). This is a key element of the ‘hidden face’, which is the other side of a two-dimensional viewpoint on power. The additional dimension is added to that of the aforementioned one-dimensional classical pluralist theorem. The most successful way to exercise the power by its 'hidden face' is by making sure that something does not appear on the agenda in the political arena.

In the United States, people always talk about freedom and equality. Especially they want elections could be more democratic. In American Democracy in Peril, Hudson’s main argument regarding chapter five “Election Without the People’s Voice,” is if elections want to be democratic, they must meet three essential criteria, which are to provide equal representation of all citizens, to be mechanisms for deliberation about public policy issues, and to control what government does. Unfortunately, those points that Hudson mentions are what American elections do not have. American elections do not provide equal representation to everyone in the country.

“Democracy is beautiful in theory; in practice it is a fallacy,” said Benito Mussolini. By the time one enters the third grade they become aware of concept of democracy. Specifically in America, one is taught that they live in a democratic society. When asking what is democracy, the answer is never truly defiente. The answers given may be; a society where everyone votes, or by dictionary definition “a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of the state; typically through elected representation.”