More handpicked essays just for you.
Effects of economic growth essay
Why is the study of economics important essay
Relevance of economics in day to day life
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Effects of economic growth essay
Analysis Paper 5
This week’s readings continued to the analysis, evaluations, and critiques of retrospective voting specifically focusing on why voters tend to focus only on election-year economic growth rather cumulative economic growth when going to the polls to reelect or vote out incumbent presidents. This paper will assess the implications of the reading by Achen and Bartels and Healy and Lenz, and what they say about the health of American democracy.
Achen and Bartels critically examine the rationality of economic voting within the retrospective theory of democratic accountability. They note that there is clear consensus among scholars that recent economic performance is much more relevant at election time than earlier economic performance. They conducted an analysis comparing the quarterly growth rates of real income, using data from the first quarter of 1947 through the second quarter of 2013, with the four-year presidential election cycle (Q1-Q16). However, they assert that each administration is only responsible for the five months after they have taken office (Q3) though the five months after they have left office (Q18). The results of their analysis presented in
…show more content…
This “end-heuristic” explanation creates problems for policy and election outcomes Achen and Bartels agree with this conclusion as well because voter’s myopia of incumbent administrations come election time, makes retrospective accountability little more than a game of “musical chairs” since is not largely related to either ideology or incumbent performance, but instead its likely be determined by the most recent economic performance prior to election
Stephen Skowronek writes about political time and how one can determine the legacy a president will leave behind at the time their presidency is done. The president has immense powers when he comes to office, but the challenges they each face vary depending on the time they take office. Skowronek analyzes and demonstrates that the most essential factor for a president to attempt to legitimize his actions and orders will be the actions of the president before him. Following the actions of George W. Bush is how we can determine where Barack Obama falls under and follow the chain to the next president. If Hillary Clinton were to win the 2016 election, she would fall under the politics of articulation and Barack Obama would fall under the politics of pre-emption.
elections is debatable—and the non-inclusiveness of early American elections undeniable— the Constitution unequivocally establishes regular elections for seats in the House of Representatives and for the executive office (articles I and II respectively), a key component of Poloni-Staudinger and Wolf’s definition of liberal democracy (35). Moreover, the inclusion of a series of individual rights appended to the Constitution (U.S. Const. ams. 1-10) buttresses Constitutional protection of individual civil rights and civil liberties, two popular protections imperative for any state seeking the designation liberal
The U.S. president is a person deemed to be the most fitting person to lead this country through thick and thin. It’s been such a successful method that it has led to 43 individual men being put in charge of running this country. However, this doesn’t mean that each one has been good or hasn’t had an issue they couldn’t resolve when in office. But no matter what, each one has left a very unique imprint on the history and evolution of this nation. However when two are compared against one another, some rather surprising similarities may be found. Even better, is what happens when two presidents are compared and they are from the same political party but separated by a large numbers of years between them. In doing this, not only do we see the difference between the two but the interesting evolution of political idea in one party.
Obama’s 2008 election threw a wrench in the works when it comes to classifying Clinton’s election and future elections. “When a stable persistent voter coalition is established, the vote is non-successive elections will be highly correlated” (Pomper 544). The non-successive elections of 2000, 2004, and 2016 certainly support this. The same might be said, however, for 2008, 2012, and 2020 if a democratic candidate puts up similar numbers to Obama. If that were so, does that make 2016 a “temporary peculiarity” and 2008 a critical election? It is impossible to know until the time comes that 2008 and 2012 can really be looked back on. Pomper encourages people to look at elections and candidates not as isolated events, but to “focus on the similarities between different elections, … classify them … abstract some patterns” (Pomper 535), but can this always hold true? Obama’s substantial victory in 2008 could be coughed up to Campbell’s fundamentals. The Republicans are in their second term, the economy is at its lowest since the Great Depression, and Bush’s approval rating is at 25% by the end of October (Gallup). In that case, the Democratic voter base may not have really changed, but more people voted Democrat because they were unhappy with Bush. “Either the ‘Obama coalition’ is very much Obama’s rather than his party’s, or that his victories are due to circumstances”
Golden, A. L. (2001). Disputed ballots, partisan conflict, and constitutional uncertainty: The election of 2000 in historical context. The American Behavioral Scientist, 44(12), 2252-2268. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/214769221?accountid=45049
Weissert, C., & Halperin, K. (2007). The paradox of term limit support: to know them is not to love them. Political Research Quarterly, 60.3, 516-517.
The president has a significant amount of power; however, this power is not unlimited, as it is kept in check by both the judicial and legislative branches. The president is held responsible for passing legislation that will improve the lives of everyday Americans, even though he shares his legislative powers with Congress. The sharing of power acts as an impediment to the president’s ability to pass legislation quickly and in the form it was originally conceived. However, Americans do not take this into account when judging a president, as they fully expect him to fulfill all of the promises he makes during his campaign. By making promises to pass monumental legislation once elected without mentioning that Congress stands as an obstacle that must be hurdled first, the president creates unrealistic expectations of what he can fulfill during his time in office (Jenkins-Smith, Silva, and Waterman, 2005). A president is expected to have the characteristics that will allow him to efficiently and effectively lead the nation and to accomplish the goals he set during his campaign (Jenkins-Smith et al., 2005). There have been a handful of presidents that have been immortalized as the ideal person to lead the United States and if a president does not live up to these lofty expectations the American public will inevitably be disappointed. Since every president is expected to accomplish great things during his presidency, he is forced to created and project a favorable image through unrealistic promises. The combination of preconceived ideas of the perfect president and the various promises made by presidential candidates during their campaign create unrealistic expectations of the president by the American public.
Among the many ways Americans can participate in politics, voting is considered one of the most common and important ways for Americans to get involved. The outcome of any election, especially at the national level, determines who will be making and enforcing the laws that all Americans must abide by. With this in mind one might assume that all Americans are active voters, but studies show the voter turnout is actually astonishingly low. With this unsettling trend it is important to know what statistics say about voter turnout as was as the four major factors that influence participation: Socioeconomic status, education, political environment, and state electoral laws, in order to help boost turnout in future elections.
In 1992 the incumbent president George Bush was seeking reelection. It was the general consensus that he would be the 'hands down, no contest winner'. When the smoke had cleared and the votes were tallied, many were shocked at the results. Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton had defeated the incumbent by a landslide! How could this be? How did the commander and chief of what could be considered the greatest victory in modern American history defeat the Iraqi army and one year later lose the election for the presidency? The answers to these questions as well as explanations for the outcome lie within the campaign strategies and tactics used by each candidate. There were various major political events and public opinion data that occurred throughout the general election stage of the campaign. This paper will analyze both the political events and the public opinion data, in hopes of developing a better understanding as to what helped shape the overall outcome. There were three candidates in the race for the presidency, President Bush (R), Bill Clinton (D), and Ross Perot (I). Each of the three, to a greater or lesser extent, focused their campaign on the economy. President Bush focused more of his campaign on criticizing his opponents primarily Bill Clinton. He would often compare the economy to that of other nations, claiming it wasn't all that bad and resumed attacking his opponents. Bill Clinton on the other hand focused his campaign strategy on implementing the need for 'change.' At that time the national debt and unemployment was rising. Clinton vowed to improve the economy and the quality of life for the American people by bringing about change. Ross Perot was more of a crusader against Washin...
Smith, R. M. “Our Republican Example”: The Significance of the American Experiments in Government in the Twenty-First Century. American Political Thought, 1, 101-128.
Shugart, Matthew. "Elections: The American Process of Selecting a President: A Comparative Perspective." Presidential Studies, 34, 3 (September 2004): 632-656.
TerBeek, Calvin. “’Swing’ voters are still partisan.” Chicago Turbine. N.p., 20 Nov. 2013. Web. 8 Dec. 2013. .
Understanding and evaluating presidents’ performance often poses challenges for political experts. The nation votes one president at the time and each presidency faces different tests. The environments surrounding a presidency have a tremendous impact on the success and failure of that presidency. In addition, the president exercises his power through a check and balance system embody in the Constitution. As stated in (Collier 1959), the Constitution created a government of “separated institutions sharing power.” As a result, a president works with others institutions of the government to shape the nation’s agenda. Thus, determining a presidential performance becomes difficult, especially when it comes to comparing the performance among presidencies.
Several forms of government have been formed since the development of centralized power. The form of government that has showed the most international growth in the last century is democracy. There are currently over 160 democracies in the world today. These democracies, however, are not complete democracies. They are representative democracies that have been created by the leaders of our predominantly patriarchal international system. Due to this, many citizens of these democracies are considered second class citizens and their views are not heard by their supposedly democratic society. A solution to this problem is participatory democracy. Participatory democracy is better than the existing patriarchal society because it allows the progression of society as a whole, eliminates political oppression, and creates a predominantly equal political culture for the citizens it governs. There is much evidence that proves that the advantages of participatory democracy heavily outweigh the drawbacks and that it is a better way of government than patriarchy. This evidence can be found in historical analysis, scrutiny of the patriarchal international system, the development of participatory democracy, and the values of a participatory democracy versus the values of a patriarchal democracy.
Adapted by many countries around the world, the system of democracy continues to be an evolving subject of argument due to its requirement of the mass population to vote for a leader based on their personal choices and their understanding of who will help society progress further with his or her rationalities and strengths in different sectors of the country such as politics, social sectors, and economics. Amongst various individuals who argue against democracy is Fred Ptarmigan Winkles, Sr. who does not trust democracy. He chooses to focus on how our chosen political representatives manipulate us (the mass majority) and trick us rather than put forth the truth of our progressions and problems as a society. In addition, he targets the implications corrupt and careless leaders can have on society; poverty and starvation are amongst these implications. Furthermore, Fred Ptarmigan Winkles, Sr. emphasizes the results of a dishonest leader who can create a chain effect by using all of society's resources for him/herself and leaving us citizens deprived of resources that we have created ourselves and have lost control of. Although he places his arguments with thoughtful articulation, mistakes are detected through the use of fallacies as these help us see through the faulty evidence that Fred Ptarmigan Winkles, Sr. has failed to identify while presenting his arguments.