0
Still curious? Ask our experts.
Chat with our AI personalities
Rafa
Ross
ReneAdd your answer:
Earn +20 pts
How did the rise of political parties affect the electoral college?
Political parties began to effect the outcome of some of the Electoral College results. There were ties due to political loyalties.
. What is one effect that minor parties have on the American political system?
They take votes away from major parties candidates.
What are the strengths of having political parties?
Political parties have unified groups of people and helped them seek and achieve common goals. They help to offer voters choices. Just as people have a favorite sports team that they tend to favor, political parties give people something to identify with. Political parties tend to control who get what, where, when, and how much. Their major purpose for existence is to get people to elect their candidates. Political parties tend to attract people based on their performances and their political platforms. What the promise and what they accomplish while being in office largely determine which coalitions will affiliate with their party in the next elections. So even though elections between political parties can be heated they have served as a way for people to identify with government and best express their individual voice.
What contributions do minor parties make to the US political system?
Minor parties take votes away from the candidates of other parties.
What are some arguments for and against the electoral college?
Arguments for the Electoral College are that: - it contributes to the cohesiveness of the country by requiring a distribution of popular support to be elected president. - it enhances the status of minority interests. - it contributes to the political stability of the nation by encouraging a two-party system. - it maintains a federal system of government and representation. Arguments against the Electoral College are that: - it diminishes the principle of one vote per person, by giving the population of small states more electoral votes than an equivalent population in a large in a large state would receive - it can award victory to the candidate who wins the electoral but not the popular vote - a candidate who wins the electoral but not the popular vote may have a lasting problem of legitimacy as president. The indefensible reality is that more than 99% of campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was showered on voters in just ten states in 2012- and that in today's political climate, the swing states have become increasingly fewer and fixed. Where you live determines how much, if at all, your vote matters. The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the US Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), ensures that the candidates, after the conventions, will not reach out to about 80% of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. It would only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in just the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with a mere 23% of the nation's votes! This is somewhat obviated by the current political disagreements between some of these states.
