Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Why is voting so important
Why is voting so important
Importance Of Voting In A Democracy
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Why is voting so important
The concept that is most important to me is popular sovereignty. Popular Sovereignty is the rule that the government is run by the people. The government is the leading body in a country that is responsible for ruling, and enforcing/creating laws. Also, the people are all the human beings that make up a certain state or country's population. Therefore, popular sovereignty is the principle that the power of the government is made and held together from the approval of its people. These elected representatives are the “source of political power.” Popular sovereignty simply means that the people in the government are chosen by the people of that country. The United States elects the government from the voice of the people. If these rules of listening to the people did not apply, everything would be decided by dictatorship. Dictatorship is the other way of making decisions. …show more content…
Other countries use dictatorship, so therefore the people in that country aren’t aloud to give any input on making decisions, and they have no say in the actions of the government. When we elect the president and congress we look for people who have the best plan to improve the United States, and who speak for the people.
One example of this concept was when the people who were able to vote, elected Barack Obama into office. We, the people, elected Barack Obama into office because we wanted change and we also wanted improve our lives. We felt that he offered the best plan that fit our preferences. Soon after he was elected into office, he provided better health care. This is a good example of popular sovereignty because the president that the people elected, ended up providing better health care, just like we asked that he improve our lives. Another reference to the good side of popular sovereignty would be that the people are now supporting the candidate Donald Trump because he makes the people feel safer. One way he makes the people feel safer would be his plan to create a wall to seperate the United States from Mexico. The people would feel safer because if there was a separating wall between the United States and Mexico, immigrants wouldn’t be able to secretly pass
through. One the other hand, there could also be a negative side of popular sovereignty. When electing a president the majority of the people’s votes rule. This can create many disagreements which lead to people being unhappy about the elected officials. One recent example of this situation would be Bernie Sanders (if he gets elected) providing free healthcare to all of the United States. Some people like this idea, but many other people disagree because they think it will cost to much money. Lastly, there are many ups and very few downs about popular sovereignty. In conclusion, popular sovereignty works and provides people what they want even though some people might disagree.
The worries of yesterday Eventually, we will have a tyranny without a strong, trustworthy constitution. We do not want to recreate exactly what the colonists were trying to avoid and escape from, which was tyranny. Tyranny refers to when a person has a lot of power, and has a lot on their hands, having complete control, and total control. In 1787 a group of delegates from 12 of the 13 states goes together to try to better the country.
Absolute monarchy (Absolutism), it is a form of monarchy in which a single ruler has supreme authority and it is not restricted by any written laws or customs. An example of absolutism monarchy is French King Louis XIV, Russian Tsar Peter the Great, or English King Henry VIII. Democracy is a system of government by elected representatives or officials. Example of democracy is the United States. These type of government exist in the 17th and 18th century in Europe. So the question is, which type of government was considered the most effective in Europe? In my opinion, I believe that absolutism was the most effective in Europe.
In this excerpt from Democracy in America Alexis Tocqueville expresses his sentiments about the United States democratic government. Tocqueville believes the government's nature exists in the absolute supremacy of the majority, meaning that those citizens of the United States who are of legal age control legislation passed by the government. However, the power of the majority can exceed its limits. Tocqueville believed that the United States was a land of equality, liberty, and political wisdom. He considered it be a land where the government only served as the voice of the its citizens. He compares the government of the US to that of European systems. To him, European governments were still constricted by aristocratic privilege, the people had no hand in the formation of their government, let alone, there every day lives. He held up the American system as a successful model of what aristocratic European systems would inevitably become, systems of democracy and social equality. Although he held the American democratic system in high regards, he did have his concerns about the systems shortcomings. Tocqueville feared that the virtues he honored, such as creativity, freedom, civic participation, and taste, would be endangered by "the tyranny of the majority." In the United States the majority rules, but whose their to rule the majority. Tocqueville believed that the majority, with its unlimited power, would unavoidably turn into a tyranny. He felt that the moral beliefs of the majority would interfere with the quality of the elected legislators. The idea was that in a great number of men there was more intelligence, than in one individual, thus lacking quality in legislation. Another disadvantage of the majority was that the interests of the majority always were preferred to that of the minority. Therefore, giving the minority no chance to voice concerns.
George Mason explains that when a man has power, he does not use that power with discernment. Once that power is in his hands, he will only crave for more. The nature of power to man is to utilize that power and gain more and more. Mankind are selfish and will only focus on their interests first and forget about the interests of people. A man will do whatever it takes to gain that power. Power is like an addiction, once you acquire a little bit of it, you will only want more. In summarization, man is currently power-hungry and has been power hungry from the beginning of time and will continue to be power-hungry till the end of ages. For this a government is needed and a constitution that all people will be able to comply with and this is the biggest safeguard. Everyone, regardless of their position will have to follow the constitution. The constitution keeps everything fair and is a good safeguard because with this no one will be oppressed and no one will be able to get too powerful either, so it's balanced and fair to everyone. Today this system is valid, because in the current news you can see that people are still very power-hungry and
The scenes in creation being intellectual, the put together of constitutional democracy was very empirical. The Constitutional Convention was convened to formulate the constitution. What had to be clear was that the only way to assure a functioning constitutional democracy was the public's discussion. In philadelphia the delegates compromised. The outcome was to integrate states with large populations and states with small populations with a bicameral legislative branch. Also compromises that guaranteed say from both slave owning states and non-slave states could be listened to. The Bill of Rights
The United States is governed by a democracy. According to Dictoinary.com, democracy is “government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system” (Dictoinary.com). This means that instead of having a supreme ruler, the citizens of a country have the right to vote for and choose their elected officials who will ultimately make the decisions for them. The benefit of a democracy is that depending on the public’s opinion, they can influence the government to run the way they want. This form of government provided the public with a great amount of freedom, yet is can potentially slow down the efficiency of governmental decisions. In order for a democracy to function well, public opinions must be somewhat similar to avoid gridlock. A democracy is good for public freedom, but must possess certain characteristics to provide effective results.
People have their own perspective of a government that they envision for their people. Thomas Jefferson has been the president of the United States and ruled under a monarch. Jefferson couldn’t tolerate the abuse from a monarch, so he rebelled against the British crown. In 1776, Thomas Jefferson wrote The Declaration of Independence, and declared the colonies were free from British rule. Before he became the author of The Declaration of Independence, Jefferson was established “ as an ardent republican and revolutionary” (Jacobus 77). Jacobus states Jefferson is, “one of the most versatile Americans of any generation” (Jacobus 78). In The Declaration of Independence, Jefferson and the founding fathers envisioned a government that would govern the people, and the people would be free. The people must be governed with rights, Jefferson implies it’s the government’s duty to guide and secure the people, therefore, he believes the government’s obligation to the individual is more important than the individuals obligation to the state.
American political culture emphasizes the values of liberty, equality, and democracy. Most of America’s debating is not over whether these issues are important, but how to best go about achieving these ideas. American’s define liberty as freedom, but America believes that liberty should be contained on some levels so they can create a stable society. The definition of freedom is that we can do whatever we want, as long as we do not affect another person’s freedom. American’s want to be able to do what they want, while not affecting someone else. So some rules are set to protect people and create a stable society.
Democracy is rule by the people; the people elect governing officials based off of their personal values and beliefs. Different political parties rule the political scene and are serving to represent the people’s opinions in the best ways possible. Previously, I had a belief that my political view was essentially the only one possible and therefore it was the best. These views changed quickly once I learned the different political parties, their views, how they represent the people’s views, and how public opinion shapes politics. The government is formed around differentiating opinions on which policies should be in place and which social aspects need to be considered first. Not only is the government guided by opinion, but the people’s lives are guided by opinion as well. Each individual holds a different view, and each view can have an influence on society. Fortunately, after roughly eight weeks of studying American Government, I now have a better sense of complexity and the value of
The United States of America is a republic, or representative democracy. Democracy, a word that comes to us from Greek, literally means the people rule (Romance, July 8). This broad definition leaves unanswered a few important details such as who are the people, how shall they rule, and what should they rule on (July 8). Defining the answers to those questions means defining a model for a democratic system. William E. Hudson defines four such models in his book American Democracy in Peril: the Protective, Developmental, Pluralist, and Participatory models of democracy (Hudson, 8-19). Of these models, perhaps Participatory comes closest to an ideal, pure democracy of rule by the people (16-19). In practice, however, establishing a stable ideal democracy is not entirely feasible. In a country the size of the United States, it quickly becomes unwieldy if not impossible to have direct rule by the people. To overcome this, the compromise of the representative system allows the people to choose who will rule on a regular basis. The political culture that defines American politics shows that despite this compromise, America is still very much a democratic society.
The founding of a new government, by definition, does not merely mean the establishment of a governing structure; it denotes the building of nationhood. This sense of nationhood, with time, will invariably deepen into the passion citizens have for their nations. While extreme nationalism is destructive to both self and others, a moderate amount of nationalism is the foundation of our modern democracy. It unites citizen into political units, promotes participation in democratic processes, and stabilizes democracy by building trust. Governments are, thus, important because, to some extent, they help to promote democracy.
Many philosophical theories and arguments were used during the establishment of government in the United States. These arguments told of the virtues of democracy as an instrument, and some suggested, that democracy was based on the moral rights of men having equality and liberty regardless of the outcomes. As an instrument, “John Stuart Mills believed that since democracy brings a lot of people into the process of decision making, it can take advantage of many sources of information and critical assessment of laws and policies.” (Christiano) Although the United States is technically a Republic, the idea that the people give authority to the representatives of their choosing still has the foundational principles of democracy. This republic
An issue that has remained debatable since the Jackson litigation was what ought to be the ultimate controlling factor in the British constitution: parliamentary sovereignty or the rule of law. This essay sets out to consider the reputedly irreconcilable tension between the two fundamental constitutional principles by analysing the extensive obiter dicta in Jackson and relating it to judicial review which upholds the rule of law. The contention of this essay is that despite the courts' deferential attitude towards the sovereignty of the laws of Parliament, the rule of law may potentially gain dominance and surpass parliamentary sovereignty to become the ultimate controlling factor in the British constitution.
What is democracy, and what are the benefits and disadvantages of it? This paper will focus primarily on three essays: The Social Contract by John Locke, Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau, and The Democratic Age by Fareed Zakaria. Each essay chosen is similar because each discusses what the advantages and disadvantages of free society are.
Imagine the next time you step into the voting booth your ballot only lists one candidate to choose from. Or perhaps your ballot lists four candidates, but they are all from the Liberal party. Dictatorships are one party political systems that are ruled by one leader or an elite group of people under the principle of authoritarianism. Some feel that dictatorships are the most effective form of government because decisions are made quickly and extreme nationalism benefits the military and economy. These individuals value order, nationalism, and authority. However, these systems often result in violence, repression of the public, and few provisions for changes to the system. Democracies are multiparty political systems that rest on the principle of rule by the people. Most people that live in democracies have civil liberties1, and political rights2. Individuals who feel that multiparty systems are the best government value equality, accountability, and freedom. Nations that have multiparty political systems will meet the needs of the public better through the means of political equality, a higher standard of living3, and civil liberties.