Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness
Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness
Essay on life and liberty
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness
Hillary Clinton should have won the 2016 Presidential Election for a variety of reasons, some of which are political and some of which are not. The first reason why Hillary should have been elected president is because she supports the declaration of independence in ways Donald Trump does not. As stated in the US Constitution “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” a quote with which Hillary supports unconditionally and which Donald Trump does not. Even though Trump has not clearly stated that he disagrees with the constitution it has been shown in his actions and what he advocates for, shown in the “conversion therapy” policy. The conversion therapy policy is psychological treatment or spiritual counseling designed to change a person's sexual orientation from homosexual or bisexual to heterosexual. By Donald Trump, and his running mate Mike Pence supporting this it shows that they will force people to be something they aren't and make them unhappy. How can we know he won't break laws to have it his way, making people follow one …show more content…
There are two kinds of votes that are monitored during the election, the popular vote which is the total number of votes and there is the electoral vote which is a winner take all system. So if Hillary Clinton gets 51% of the votes in California and Donald Trump get 49% Hillary would win all of the votes. According to CNN “...clung to a narrow lead in the popular vote, 47.7%-47.5%. She had 59,755,284 votes, according to CNN's tally, with 92% of the expected vote counted. Trump had 59,535,522.” Currently multiple sites are showing that Hillary is leading the popular vote from 600,000 votes to 1,000,000 votes. It is important to take notice of these votes because it exposes a fundamental issue with the electoral college and is unfair to the people who support Hillary and don't want Trump to become
It is obvious the Republican Party has no brains. If they elect Donald Trump to run for president, they are going to lose big time. They can blame themselves for being so stupid. The establishment runs the Republican Party. They are the ones who lose major elections. The leadership of the Republican Party shifts the blame to conservative wing of the Republican Party; however, it is the moderate wing of the Republican Party who loses elections. Does John McClain ring a bell? If the Republican Party hopes to win the presidency, they must run a conservative or face another trouncing in the next election. It is that simple. Therefore, the Republicans had better wake up fast if they want to
In a chart from Document G, there are 4 past elections listed that compare the popular votes to the electoral votes. In the 2000 election, George W. Bush won by 271 electoral votes, while Gore won by 266 electoral votes. This may seem reasonable for Bush to be the president, but when it comes to the popular vote, Gore had the highest amount of popular votes than Bush did. So why did Bush win instead? This is one of the main reasons why the Electoral College should be abolished.
The election took place on Nov 7, 2000. Under our electoral college system each state votes for our new president separately, a winner is then declared in each state and is awarded “electoral votes” that is equal to the states number of representatives in the House and Senate. Gore led Bush 266-246 and 270 votes are required for victory. Florida with 25 electoral votes did not have an official winner because the result was inside of the margin of error for machine counting.
Since the economic crises of the 1970’s great shift in economic policy and ideology has occurred in several western countries, Particularly the united states. In the 1980’s under the lead of Ronald Wilson Reagan the president of the united states (1981-1989) the government undertook a series of reforms which greatly affected the economic outlook on not only the US but the world. The movement which determined this shift in policy is often referred to as neo-conservatism, and the people who make up this movement are called neo-conservatives. Neo-conservatism is seen as a fantasy in modern politics. For its opponents it is a distinct political movement that emphasizes the blending of military power with Wilsonian idealism (Mearsheimer 2005), however for its supporters it is seen as a ‘persuasion’ that individuals of many types drift into and out of (Kristol 1995: ix). Regardless of which view is correct, it is now
In the Electoral College system, every state has one electoral vote for each congressman and senator. Congressman is allotted by population and every state has two senators, so Rhode Island, which has basically nobody in it, has three electoral votes. California, with 53 representatives and two senators, has 55 electoral votes. The states choose electors and the electors meet in what is called the Electoral College to pick a president. In practice, nearly every state has passed a law that the electors will all vote for the popular vote winner in their state, but as the Supreme Court said in Bush v. Gore, the people of the United States do not have a constitutional right to pick the president. A state could, if it felt like it, select the electors
Tilden received 184 of the needed 185 electoral votes and to win and led the popular vote by 250,000. However, the outcome of the race largely depended on the remaining votes from three states: Florida,
The Electoral College cast the final vote in that election. The people who went out to the polls in November, many of whom believed that they were indeed voting for president, did not. The Electoral College was established in a compromise between a direct election system, supported by James Wilson, and a system whereby the President would be chosen by congress, supported by Edgridge Gerry, in Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution (Houser, 2). It is a group of ‘electors’ who are nominated or appointed by each party within each state however they choose, who have pledged their loyalty to one candidate. In fact, it is the electors for whom we vote on Election Day.
In the 1992 presidential election Bill Clinton won only 43% of the popular vote but he won 69% of the electoral college. No one won the majority but the electoral college caused Clinton to win (Document B). Many times candidates who did not win the popular vote, won the electoral college which put them into office. Like in the 2016 election, Clinton 48% of the popular vote while Trump won only 42%. Two point nine million more americans voted for Hillary Clinton. The current president was elected by an outdated system that does not
There are two category’s in today’s society Those who oppose illegal immigration and want the immigrants to be forced back to their originating countries. Those who oppose illegal immigration but would prefer that illegal immigrants that reside within the United States are granted citizenship options. There are obviously quite a number of people that are opposed to illegal immigration. Almost all of us can say we are children of immigrants Many immigrants risk their lives to reach the United States so that they may provide their families a better life. Some immigration supporters also feel that the risks the immigrants take to get here are far too great. They feel the United States government is placing these individual 's lives at risk by
The candidate who crosses the threshold of 270 electoral votes wins the presidency. In almost every state, a candidate who wins 50.1 percent of the popular vote is awarded 100 percent of its electoral votes. (Only Maine and Nebraska don’t follow the winner-take-all rule;” for each state has a certain number of votes in the electoral college,depinding on the size and population,witch ever person running for president reaches the amount of 270 electoral votes will win the presidency.also each person who reaches 50.1 percent of popular votes is awarded 100 percent of its votes .maine and Nebraska do not follow the winner-take-all rule. also “Every four years, Americans select a president on a Tuesday in November. The two candidates representing the Republican and Democratic parties on Election Day will have survived a long series of state-level contests. Each state holds either a primary (votes by ballot) or a caucus (votes by a show of hands or by clustering all the candidate’s supporters in one place in the room). These initial elections are held from February through June.;”every four years, Americans select a president on a specific Tuesday in November.also there are a Republican and a democratic parties on election day that will overcome a series of state-level contests.each state holds a primary or a caucus votes or ballots with
In the previous 2016 election Donald J. Trump won the electoral vote over Hilary Clinton, whereas she won the popular vote. Hilary won against Donald trump with 65,853,625 to 62,985,106 popular votes. However, Donald Trump won against Hilary overall with 306 to 232 electoral votes. He won the presidential election because of this reason. The system of voting we have now is unfair; electoral vote is only a minor representation of our nation’s states, it weighs heavier than the popular vote, which is not right.
The first reason is that it does not necessarily reflect the national popular vote. Because of the way the Electoral College is set up, a presidential candidate can lose the popular vote and still win the election by winning the most electoral votes. When this happens, the outcome doesn’t reflect the national popular vote.
Once every four years, there is a vote for president by U.S. citizens. U.S. citizens determine who they want to vote for by watching debates, looking online, and reading newspapers. There are three main political parties, the Democrats, the Republicans, and the Independents. Democrats are liberal, meaning they like to stick with traditional ideas and are cautious about change. Bernie Sanders would be an amazing next president.
As both "conservatism" and "liberalism" have had various meanings sooner or later and transversely countries, the word liberal conservatism has been used in relatively different sanity. In political science, the word is used to pass on to ideologies that merge the support of capitalism, for instance value for contracts, protection of private property and free market require reference to validate with the principle in natural discrimination, the significance of religion, and the worth of traditional integrity need reference to validate in the course of a construction of inadequate, legitimate, representative government (Abdou & Zaazou 2013). It contrasts with traditional liberalism and particularly aristocratic conservatism, rejecting the belief of correspondence as a little in discordance with human nature, instead emphasizing the thought of natural inequality (Crozier. 2012).As the conservative thought in democratic countries hold typical liberal institutions such as the rule of law, private property, market economy, and constitutional representative government, the liberal factor of liberal conservatism
Conservatism is a political thought that first arose as a result of the significant changes in both politics and economics that occurred during the French revolution in the 18th century and that challenge the old regime. Conservatism was resistant to the different changes that were occurring in that period of history. As the word conservatism indicates, all the different types of conservative thought, attempt to conserve specific ideas, policies and tradition within a state. Nonetheless, the elements that want to be preserved and the extent to which things they should be conserved differ according to the place and period of time considered. Therefore, conservatism does not follow an established ideology and different branches of it exist.