The conventional literature has often conflated the features of presidential elections with presidential electoral systems. Often times, these features are explained in the margins of plurality and runoff systems or at times one (or few) electoral feature is picked to explain how presidential systems operate generally. For example, Juan Linz, Arend Lijphart and Alfred Stepan draw attention on the zero-sum game and candidate-driven features of presidential elections to suggest that presidential systems are unfit for coalition building. Donald Horowitz and others have put emphasis on presidential elections being one-seat elections and prone to pre-electoral coalitions to suggest that presidential systems are conducive to coalition building. This article suggests that they are all indeed features of presidential elections but because they operate differently, none of these features alone can explain the conduciveness (or lack thereof) of presidential systems to coalition building. Therefore, to understand how they influence coalition building in a …show more content…
Examining the presidential electoral features, this article argues that they do not have unidirectional impacts on coalition building: some electoral features incentivize the formation of cross-ethnic coalitions, others hinder their institutionalization. Therefore, while some function as constructive features of presidential elections, others are obstructive to coalition building. Revealing the multidirectional impacts of presidential electoral features, this article explains why cross-ethnic coalitions have had glamorous starts, but followed by short lives in Afghanistan. Although initially popular and promising, these coalitions grow weak and prone to dissolution. As is detailed later, most coalitions do not endure beyond a single presidential
This chapter focuses on other possible explanations for increased political polarization and then explain how they don’t account for increased polarizations. The authors give plenty of possible counterarguments for their audience to consider and then show why they are right by shutting those counterarguments down with an overwhelming amount of evidence. They introduce counterarguments like intraparty competition during primaries, partisan congressional reforms, redistricting, and Southern Realignment. Intraparty competition during primaries does not show significant differences in legislators for there to be a solid argument. There are statistics that show that polarization would have been unaltered even without changes in partisan congressional reforms.
The traditional and most popular way of thinking about politics is simple; the candidate who wins elections is always the candidate who has the support of American voters. Hardball, while not challenging this notion, addresses a similar question;
The United States' President and Vice President are chosen through the Electoral College, an indirect voting system. As a middle ground between electing the president through a popular vote and having Congress choose the candidate, it was established by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution. According to this method, a set number of electors is allotted to each state based on its population, and these electors vote for the president on behalf of the residents of their state. For more than 200 years, the United States has chosen its president using the Electoral College system, which has proven to be a trustworthy and accurate method.
Feld. 2005. “Thinking about the Political Impacts of the Electoral College.” Public Choice 123(1-2): 1–18. doi: 10.1007/s11127-005-3210-4.
The electoral college also maintains a strong two-party system, in which there are two parties that provide a generalized platform for voters rather than a single-issued third party. Moreover, with the the two-party system of Democrats and Republicans, the government provides a stability in America in which American citizens can relate to a variety of interests. However, even with all these benefits that are provided for Americans, there are flaws that are elicited within the electoral
Every four years, a new or returning President of the United States of America is elected. Since 1787, the formation of The Constitutional Convention have came up with a way to elect the nation’s president. The system which was established as the “Electoral College” sets up an unfair, unconstitutional, and undemocratic way to select the nation’s new or returning President of the United States of America. To start, the Electoral College by definition are not a single person—but rather a group of “electors” that represent each state of the United States to officially select the President and Vice President for the nation.
Practices like these show how the Electoral College indirectly allows the reduction of third-party candidates to ballot obstacles instead of legitimate contenders with valid ideas that could
The gathering concedes to some proposed strategies and projects, with a view to advancing the aggregate great or assisting their supporters ' advantages. Most importantly, Political parties compete against each other to have the capacity to
(This topic will be explained in two parts – Partisanship and antipathy of the Democrats and the Republicans). 1. Even though American politicians have been characteristic of negatively rating their opponents, currently those negative ratings have more than doubled as compared to two decades ago. 2. Deeply negative ratings and the strong dislike of the Democrats and Republicans has risen to alarming levels with each side viewing the opponents’ policies as misguided leading to gridlocks in policy making processes.
Patricia Totman Briefly explain how the Electoral College works. Do the most "popular" votes always decide the presidency? Do you think the Electoral College is the best way to elect the president? Discuss some alternatives to it (based on your research).
The United States hinges on the statues of a democracy, right? At least that is what the founding fathers envisioned. However, the Electoral College, the United States presidential voting system, has made various notable figures and scholars question its use in modern day society. I strongly contend that the Electoral College is not a legitimate and effective vehicle for electing presidents. Although the Electoral College is a foundational aspect of the US government, it needs to be reexamined, amended, or replaced with, perhaps, a direct voting system, in spite of those that argue that a direct voting system would allow too much large power to the states (Limbaugh, 2000).
The Electoral College plays a very important role in the presidential election. The founding fathers established it in the constitution as a compromise between election of the president by a vote in congress and election of the president by a popular vote of qualified citizens. A majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect the president. Sad to say that gaining all the popular votes doesn 't guarantee you a win. On four occasions, the winner of the popular vote did not capture the presidency.
The Electoral College is the process to which the United States elects the President, and the Vice President. The founders of the Constitution came up with this process. This was done to give additional power to the small states, and it was done to satisfy them. It works by the citizens of the United States electing representatives called electors. Each state is given the same amount of electors, as they are members of congress.
Several years after the United States came to be, the Constitutional Convention met to determine how the new nation should govern itself. The delegates saw that it was crucial to have a president and vice president, but the delegates did not want these offices to reflect how the colonies were treated under the British rule. The delegates believed that the president’s power should be limited, and that he should be chosen through the system known as the Electoral College. The Electoral College is a body of people who represent the states of the US, who formally cast votes for the electing of the president and vice president. Many citizens feel that the Electoral College goes against our nation’s principle of representative democracy, while others
Many people believe that the election plays the most important role in democracy. Because a free and fair election holds the government responsible and forces it to behave on voter's interest. However, some scholars find evidence that election itself is not enough to hold politicians responsible if the institutions are not shaping incentives in a correct way. In other words, the role of the election on democracy, whether it helps to serve the interest of the public or specific groups, depends on other political institutions. I