In conclusion, the both arguments Finkelman and Wilson made were both well-supported, but Finkelman’s assertions were more supported. The four primary sources support both historians’ arguments well in different degree. All of the document seemed to support Finkelman’s explanation, and some documents like Jefferson’s letters supported more of Finkelman’s while Jefferson’s other documents seem to support Wilson’s more. Their judgment on Jefferson’s action differ because Wilson judged him in terms of morality in a historical context that he had better morality than other people in that period —“Jefferson did not take the next step of concluding that blacks were fit only for slavery” (Wilson, 1992)-- and acted for the sake of the slaves. Whereas
American voters became more influential in presidential elections because of the events that took place during the Jacksonian and Progressive Eras. In the Jacksonian Era, some voting restrictions were removed, voting became more private, the public was more informed about politics, and voters were taken into greater consideration by presidential candidates. In the Progressive Era, better living conditions, the fight against corruption, and other political reforms made it easier for the working class to vote for candidates that they favored. These events gave voters a greater influence in politics and made elections more fair. During the Jacksonian Era, states began to give citizens a larger influence over presidential elections.
In the presidential election of 1922, the candidates were Clinton, Bush, and Perot. On the subject of popular vote, Clinton won 43%, Bush received 37.5%, and Perot received 18.9% (Document B). From this data, one can conclude that Perot had a smaller, but noteworthy amount of popular votes in comparison with the other contenders.
To What Extent Should the United States Restructure its Electoral College System? : States With the 2016 election in the books, the United States has elected a candidate that lost the popular vote by over two million votes. This is the second time in the twenty first century that this has occurred. In such a democratic nation, the ability to win the important office of the presidency without popular consent raises a few concerns about the two hundred and forty year old system. In a democracy, the voices of the states and their respective populations must be heard.
So during the 1960 presidential election you should vote for and most or not biased. So during the 1960 presidential election you should vote for Vice President Richard
Treen’s campaign was ineffective because the bulk of it was based around his morality, and not about his will to get things done in office. Moreover, Treen’s track record in office fell short of Edward’s record. Maginnis believed that “given the immense personal power attached to this office” people chose to vote “not on a political or moral basis but on a psychological one.” In contrast, because of Edwards’ captivating, go-getter personality, the people felt he was a more effective leader than Treen (pg. 72). The public wanted a self-confident, assured person in office who was a “winner” (pg.
The Election of 1800 was one of the most controversial and exciting presidential elections for/of history. This election resulted in a tie between two candidates who had been running mates. The winner was decided by The House of Representatives. The election was a clash of powers between the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans. Both candidates believed the winner would set the path of America's government forever.
“Elections are events,” says Orr, arguing that convenience voting takes the historical and communal factors out of the voting equation. The idea of voting on days other than Election Day is still deemed untraditional even though, for instance, postal voting has been around for over a century now. People use convenience voting as alternatives to Election Day, they do not use Election Day as an alternative to convenience voting. This indicates that there is something special about voting on Election Day. Arguably, had voting been convenient on Election Day, people would rather that than use any forms of convenience
The election of 1796, John Adams versus Thomas Jefferson. The former won by only 3 single electoral college votes. In a highly competitive, controversial race filled with fake smiles and harsh glares, those votes made all the difference in the world to these two men and their running mates. Because George Washington refused a second term, political parties took root when election time came around. No one knew that this election in the early stages of Americas development would define the future of the United States of America.
From September 1st to September 17th, I asked 17 random students from the University of Texas at San Antonio if we should abolish the Electoral College. Out of my findings, I discovered that the majority of students were for the abolishment of the Electoral College. The results were relatively close with 58.82% of the respondents for abolishing the Electoral College and 41.18% for preserving it. However, there was a margin of error of 23.76%, and a 95% confidence interval of 35.06% to 82.58%.
The results of the election of 2000 will have implications on the United States for at least four years, and perhaps more. The day after the election, calls were already ringing out for the abolition of the Electoral College, along with as many calls defending it. This could indicate a sea change to how we elect our President - or it could amount to nothing at all. If nothing else, the election of 2000 renewed the prominence of the Constitution in the minds of the common
In a democracy, all citizens of a nation should be equal in every way. The Electoral College’s violation of political equality diminishes one of the most important staples of a democratic government. An even worse scenario can occur in the Electoral College in the case of a tie, in which “the election is thrown to the House of Representatives, where state delegations vote on the president” (Plumer 457). When this occurs, the general public’s votes are cast aside and
The United States currently faces a severe problem with one of their governmental processes. In the democratic system of the United States, politicians are elected by voting from the citizens, in most cases. The problem the United States is facing is that people are no longer voting in elections for officials. This problem is discussed in the article, “In praise of low voter turnout”, written by Charles Krauthammer. The main idea behind this article is that voters are no longer interested in politics, as they were in previous generations.
It is clear that American voters tend to avoid local elections and off-year elections. Run-off elections are also likely to register lower voter turnout as compared to first-round elections. The larger the gap between first round elections and run-off elections, the higher the decline in voter turnout. Moreover, there are lower percentages of young people voting as compared to the older population. This is an important point to note since it highlights that young people do not have information guiding them on the importance of voting.
In the short story called, “The American Electoral Process,” Kubic explained to us about why he disagrees with how the Constitution and the Congress take all votes for every single state as well as being unalike in population and size in which he would tell of as
