| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "ELECTION REFORM": |
|
|
Election Reform, 5.
This paper discusses the history of election reform in the U.S..
3,245 words (approx. 13.0 pages), 12 sources, APA, $ 93.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that the founding fathers, who wrote the Constitution, were extreme elitists, who gave (1) suffrage to all white men with property and (2) the power to elect the highest executive office, not to the people, but to the Electoral College or the House of Representatives. The author points out that, although the Constitution has been amended to permit people of color, women, 18 year-olds and residents of the District of Columbia to vote in both local and national elections; the U.S. Congress, unlike most other countries, still retains (1) the voting day as "the first Tuesday in November" instead of a weekend day and (2) indirect election of the President through the Electoral College. The paper relates that the bipartisan bill, HR 57, would establish a nonpartisan 12-member commission to examine the advisability and feasibility of proportional voting systems, instant runoff voting, voting system technology and and other issues such as the Electoral College and voter registration options including same-day registration and universal registration.
Table of Contents
Why Do We Need Continuous Reform of the Election Process?
A Short History of Amendments to the Voting Process as Defined by the U.S. Constitution
Article XXIV
Section 1
Section 2
Article XXIII
Section 1
Article XXVI
Section 1
If, How and Why Should We Now Amend the Constitution in Response to the Election of 2000?
Conclusion: Can We Afford a Disenchanted Voting Majority?
From the Paper
"Once African Americans were allowed to register to vote without paying a poll tax, local electors used strong-armed tactics by lawful and unlawful groups such as the local sheriff and the Klu Klux Klan, to dissuade any civic-minded individuals of color. Those people of color who were willing to face physical and financial coercion were further subjected to stringent intellectual requirements as a prerequisite to registering to vote. The black population had to quote chapter and verse of the State and U.S. Constitution and analyze it in order to qualify to vote. Men belonging to the white population in the South only had to prove they could read at the second grade level and write their names. Given that those in power were the ones to create electoral divisions in the various states, those in power artificially created voting blocks that were favorable to their own ends, not to that of the people. We still face that problem today."
| |
|
1992 Election Reforms in Israel, 1998.
A look at the ramifications of the 1992 election reforms in Israel.
2,070 words (approx. 8.3 pages), 7 sources, $ 65.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper details the nature of Israeli democracy since the nation?s 1992 reforms, presenting strong evidence of the new system?s weaknesses and strengths. The paper looks at the old system, then looks at the new reform system and the reasons for the change.
From the Paper
"The State of Israel has used a system of national proportional representation since its inception in 1948. The electoral system has led to large numbers of diverse parties actively participating in government. Under Israeli proportional representation, each registered party submits a ranked list of its contenders and providing that the party passes the qualifying threshold of 1.5% of the total vote, it will receive a proportional amount of seats from 120 that are available in the Knesset?the Israeli parliament. Until the 1992 election reform, the party list winning a majority of votes would have its top leader become the Prime Minister and try to form a ruling coalition. The 1992 reform, however, effective in the latest 1996 election allowed each voter to choose a party list, and to vote separately for Prime Minister who must be elected by a majority of the vote."
| |
|
The 2004 Canadian Federal Election, 2005.
This paper discusses the 2004 Canadian Federal election, which was a watershed election in the political history of Canada because it shows the trend towards coalition governments as in Italy.
1,958 words (approx. 7.8 pages), 9 sources, MLA, $ 62.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that the Canadian Federal Elections 2004, also called the 38th General Election, which were held on June 28, 2004, resulted in the Liberal government of Prime Minister Paul Martin losing its majority but still were able to form a minority government, being the single largest party. The author points out that the elections were preceded by a 36-day intensive election campaign, which was marked by the fact that all the leaders of the three major national parties were changed after the 37th General Elections of 2000. The paper relates that Prime Minister Paul Martin was expected to have an easy victory and form the fourth consecutive Liberal majority government, but the impact of sponsorship scandal reduced the margin of victory and the Liberals could not have a clear majority.
Table of Contents:
Introduction
Issues
Gender Mix in Nomination
Seats Won
Division of Votes (%)
From the Paper
"The Conservative party leader was quite sanguine when he said: "We will accept the verdict of the Canadian people but will remind the government...they will be held accountable." The threat of the Conservative party was a Damocles' sword having over the head of the Liberal government. The Liberal win had the seeds of its own defeat in its victory. Historically, Canada had nine minority governments and none of them lasted for more than two years. These minority governments have been limited by their ability to get their bills passed. Stephen Harper, leader of the Conservative party, realized that Ontario is the most important province where he did not fare well."
| |
|
The Election of 1876, 2004.
This paper discusses the 1876 election, which was marred by a controversy over ballots, and compares it to the 2000 elections.
2,955 words (approx. 11.8 pages), 8 sources, MLA, $ 87.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that the Republicans were represented by Rutherford B. Hayes, while the Democrats were represented by Samuel B. Tilden. The author points out that the 1876 election, a highly publicized and explosive battle between the Democrats and the Republicans, took place ten years after the Civil War, a crucial time for the United States of America. The paper compares the election of 1876 and the election of 2000; a candidate had to face defeat in the jaws of victory, the electoral votes were in dispute in the state of Florida, and the outgoing president tainted with scandals had completed two terms in office.
Table of Contents
Introduction: What Is an Election?
Brief Study of the 1876 Election
History of the 1876 Election
From the Paper
"The Democratic Party believed that the Republicans stood to lose due to the record levels of corruption in the administration of President Grant. The Democratic Party also believed that people were tired of the Republican Party as they were responsible for the economic crisis, which had hit the nation and had left them all suffering as a result. The republicans were also hated due to their constant quotation of the term reconstruction. Reconstruction was something, which the southern states, hated, as they had to adapt according to the plans laid out by the reconstruction process."
| |
|
The 2004 U.S. Presidential Election, 2005.
This paper discusses the 2004 U.S. Presidential election, including background, election results and an assessment of what each campaign did right and wrong.
1,700 words (approx. 6.8 pages), 5 sources, APA, $ 55.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that, although the 2004 Presidential elections were not as contentious as the 2000 election and may not go down in history as one of the worst election in history, it certainly changed the way many politicians look at elections and the way the Democratic Party will attack elections in the future. The author points out that the campaign issues were quite clear and quite emotional on both sides: President Bush ran on a conservative ticket, opposing moral issues such as gay-marriage, abortion and gun control: whereas, Senator Kerry's focused on the positive and was far more liberal on just about every issue, from gay marriage to foreign policy. The paper states that Senator Kerry's campaign could not rouse the American people as much as President Bush's could and it seems that many of Kerry's supporters and political advisors did not know how to advise Kerry; therefore, he seemed to "flip-flop" on many of his positions.
From the Paper
"Election week was a flurry of campaigning, political ads, and polls. In the Showdown States, many voters complained of numerous phone calls and in-person visits from both parties, along with many special interest groups who were employing every measure they could in a last ditch effort to elect their specific candidate. The polls showed the election was extremely close (nearly 50-50), and so, the campaigning was much more intense than many people remembered in previous years. The battle for electoral votes seemed all in Kerry's favor early in the election results, when many East Coast polls closed. Kerry won in many East Coast states, including New York and Massachusetts, but Bush carried the states in the Midwest, such as Missouri, Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, and of course, Ohio. These states tend to be more conservative in their outlook, and are traditionally Republican strongholds, and this was the case in 2004."
| |
|
2000 Election, 2002.
A discussion of the 2000 U.S. presidential elections and a comparison to the elections of 1876.
993 words (approx. 4.0 pages), 3 sources, APA, $ 35.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper provides a brief insight to the main events of the 2000 U.S. presidential elections. It analyzes how George W. Bush won the original vote in Florida and then won a recount of the same vote and how the Gore team opposed Bush?s win, trying to hold on as long as they could. They claimed that the "butterfly" ballot used in several counties, including the Democratic Palm Beach County, was unconstitutional. It compares these events to the elections of 1876 between Samuel J. Tilden and Rutherford B. Hayes, a Republican governor like Bush and how like the 2000 election, the outcome of the 1876 election depended largely upon contested votes, recounts and even legal posturing in Florida .
From the Paper
"The legal ballot used in Palm Beach County was actually designed by an elected Democrat official. Prior to the election, it was reviewed and approved by both Democrats and Republicans, publicized, and mailed to all registered voters in a sample ballot. New ballots were also provided for voters who complained of making mistakes. At the request of the Gore?s team, hand-counts of individual ballots were conducted in many Democratic counties, including Palm Beach. However, during the first hand-count in Palm Beach, the standard was changed for judging whether or not a ballot was valid."
| |
|
Election Poll Results and Public Opinion, 2006.
A look at how election poll results have been used to sway public opinion during a Canadian federal election.
2,025 words (approx. 8.1 pages), 5 sources, $ 80.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This essay explores the use and power of public opinion polls by news media during a Canadian federal election. The focus is the Toronto Start and indicates the bias to the Liberals. Furthermore, whether it concerned placement, context, or lack there of, time and again, the paper used polling information to the best advantage of the Liberals, even when there was not much that could be done.
From the Paper
"The fact that The Toronto Star is a Liberal newspaper is well-known. During the 1988 election, for instance, the paper was one of handful of Canadian news outlets to take an editorial stance against the Tory darling of Free Trade, once again endorsing the Liberals. Since and before, the paper has been steeped in Liberal tradition, and this partisanship was just as evident during this year's federal election, as evidenced by the use of polls, in particular. Whether it concerned placement, context, or lack there of, time and again, the paper used polling information to the best advantage of the Liberals, even when there was not much that could be done.
| |
|
Election Cycle Politics, 2007.
An analysis of the problems caused to presidential policies, resulting from election year politics.
1,262 words (approx. 5.0 pages), 7 sources, MLA, $ 42.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the problems that are created during election year politics and how they are often blamed for the demise of entire presidential agendas; even cherished economic policies. The paper explains the election cycle and then explains the executive and legislative branches of government. Finally, the paper discusses the power of the elected official.
Table of Contents:
Introduction
Election Cycle
Executive v. Legislative Branches
Elected Officials
Conclusion
From the Paper
"The entire political apparatus in the U.S. is fairly tainted by special interest and lobby groups that have co-opted the political process for their benefit and gain. While the average citizen has seen his influence and vote become extremely minimized over the past 20 years or so, the influence of institutional forces and private enterprise has blossomed into clear policy forces. While the President may stump for votes in on Main Street during an election cycle, he spends most of his administrative efforts furthering the interests of Wall Street and Park Avenue which is where his party's largest political donors reside. Until this situation is resolved, the average individual will continue to have his or her political voice eroded."
| |
|
Election Campaigns, 2004.
Compares the election campaigns of contenders for the U.S. House of Representatives from Indiana and Florida.
2,128 words (approx. 8.5 pages), 27 sources, MLA, $ 66.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper compares and contrasts the election campaign of Democrat Julia Carson with her main opponent, Republican Brose McVey, and the election campaign of Republican Diaz-Balart with that of his main opponent, Democrat Annie Betancourt. The paper compares a variety of aspects of the campaigns, including campaign financing, platform and support, candidate profiles, media coverage, scandal, redistricting, and election results.
From the Paper
"McVey ran on a platform of economic growth and job creation, stating that Indiana has been sliding compared to the rest of the nation. McVey claimed that "there are many federal issues, such as funding for transportation and airport projects to changes in the tax code, which can have an impact on Indiana's economy. 'She's been in office six years... I haven't heard one word about what Carson is doing and advocating for.? McVey also cited Carson?s votes against President Bush?s tax cut package and against ?fast-track? trade authority. McVey?s views on political issues were much more conservative than Carson?s. He supported an amendment that would make flag burning illegal. opposed partial-birth abortion, and supported the right to bear arms. McVey also supported Bush?s policies on Iraq and taxes."
| |
|
Media Problems with Election Night 2000, 2001.
Discusses the different ways that the media blundered their early call of Al Gore as the winner of the 2000 Presidential Election.
3,363 words (approx. 13.5 pages), 14 sources, $ 95.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains what went wrong on Election Night, in particular the problems with VNS and with Ellis? involvement in Fox?s (2:15 a.m.) call. The author also covers how U.S. newspapers called the election in their November 8th editions. Chip Minemyer, associate editor of the Centre Daily Times will then give his input on the problems of election night. Finally, the author provides conclusions based on the facts he has gathered on this case.
From the Paper
" Almost everyone in the United States and throughout the world remembers how close and controversial George W. Bush?s victory against Al Gore was in the 2000 U.S. presidential election. Many people know that the five major U.S. television networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and Fox) twice wrongly declared the winner of the pivotal state of Florida, the Associated Press first declared Gore the winner, and that many U.S. newspapers said Bush was the winner in one of their November 8th editions. The networks crowned each respective candidate as the victor - first between 7:49 and 8 p.m. ET for Gore and then just after 2:16 a.m. for Bush ? only to see their declarations of victory change, in Gore?s case to undecided call and then to a Bush victory, and in Bush?s case to see victory projections change to an undecided status. What many people do not know about the miscalls are the crucial roles the Voter News Service (VNS), a consortium funded by the five major news networks and the Associated Press, and John Ellis, George W. Bush?s first cousin and a member of the Fox News? team of people responsible for calling the winner, had in the erroneous projections on election night. (Mnookin 94 & 95 and Associated Press, ?Fox Exec??)
| |
|
The U.S. 1860 Election, 2007.
This paper shows the significance of the presidential election of 1860 in American history.
3,019 words (approx. 12.1 pages), 6 sources, MLA, $ 88.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper discusses how the presidential election of 1860 was a pivotal moment in American history, as it would decide the future direction of the United States and the stance America would take on the issue of the South's institution of slavery. The paper describes the events and tensions that preceded the election and shows how the outcome of the election, the Civil War, had consequences that have shaped the United States of America into its present form.
From the Paper
"The tension throughout America at the time of the presidential election of 1860 began a decade before hand over the rights of individual states and the future of slavery. The first signs of conflict came over the issue of state of slavery in the new territories capture from Mexico. The president at the time, Zachary Taylor, was urged to grant the territory of California a government because of the lawlessness that existed there at the time of the gold rush. The question, which divided the Northern and Southern factions of government, was whether California should be open or closed to slavery. Californians were encouraged to design their own government and to choose whether they wanted to be admitted as a slave state by "popular sovereignty.""
| |
|
Election 2000 Conspiracy, 2003.
This paper explores major dilemmas encountered during the 2000 presidential election.
2,044 words (approx. 8.2 pages), 7 sources, MLA, $ 64.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper offers a look at what actually took place during election 2000. Essential topics covered include the precise meaning of democracy and it's participation in the 2000 elections and major dilemmas that took place on election night. These irregularities include voting patterns, inaccurate information provided by the media and outdated voting machines.
From the Paper
"Election 2000 stirred up great contention on how democracy comes into play in our country. The question that always comes into play, is how do the people of this great nation benefit from democracy? Do those whom we elect to represent us, on behalf of our beliefs and perspectives, control us or do we have control? When searching and defining the precise meaning of democracy in the Webster Collegiate Dictionary, it reads democracy is a government in which the supreme power is held by the people. Although the Webster Collegiate Dictionary offers a general meaning of democracy, which the average American citizen can refer to, many other references dissent. The article ?Why Democracy is Wrong? states ?definitions of democracy follow a standard pattern, a sign of a stable and established ideology?(?Why democracy is Wrong? 13). Established ideology meaning various countries around the world actually observe the process in which we elect our leaders. This great government, controlled by democracy, is what the Unites States abided by during the 2000 election. A process that takes place to demonstrate how democracy reigns over all sovereignties. So they say! The outcome of the 2000 presidential election was truly inequitable and unjust. The results left many Americans feeling cantankerous and crotchety. Furthermore, the media failed to present the people with accurate poll numbers, and precise data. In addition, many minorities, mainly African American and Latinos, were disenfranchised, and their votes disregarded. Voting machines were extremely poor and obsolete. According to the article ?Lessons of the 2000 Election? Many voters were startled to learn that the technology for casting and recording votes in a number of areas of the country is twice as old as some voters thought. Antiquated technology can lead to possible voter confusion and subjective judgments by canvassing officials, who are called upon to divine the intent of the voters in the case of disputed ballots (?Lessons of the 2000 election?). So can one say that democracy was truly representing the people? How could so many errors occur at a time when the next President of the United States would soon be elected? Was democracy really present, and was supreme power held by the people? The questions asked are rather complex at the moment because many things were done surreptitiously during the 2000 election. According to the facts that were presented during and after the 2000 Presidential Election, the results did not seem equitable, leaving the election to be one big conspiracy."
| |
|
The 2004 Presidential Election, 2005.
This paper discusses the role of swing voters in Bush's reelected in the 2004 presidential election.
920 words (approx. 3.7 pages), 4 sources, MLA, $ 32.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that the turnout during the election was up sharply, meaning that both parties did a good job mobilizing their base supporters, leaving the election to the swing voters. The author points out that issues such as gay marriage, pro-life and choice, the selection of Supreme Court justices, the fear of terrorist attacks and the economy played a huge role in how people voted. The paper argues that Bush's campaign simply did a better job at solidifying his base in the South and West with those "good old country values", while Kerry did some "flip-flopping" that hurt his campaign among the swing voters. Charts.
From the Paper
"Thus, in an election this close, one has to pay attention to the campaigns of each candidate. The nature of a campaign is to publicize its candidate and demonstrate his worth for office. Often times this worth is demonstrated simply by trying to prove one candidate better than the other. It has been proven, however, that campaigns do little to actually affect an election. Ideas of anchor partisanship and perceptual screening all feed into the idea that people are set in their views and already hold one candidate higher than the other. This preference plays itself out in a person's decision on all matters including a candidate's actions, speeches, and debates. In Appendix 2 we see how party lines influence our beliefs as to who actually won the presidential debates of 2004. Both candidates were declared victors by their respective party allegiances."
| |
|
The Presidential Election of 1992, 2005.
This paper discusses the close 1992 presidential election between challenger Bill Clinton and incumbent President George Bush (I), which was complicated by the third candidate Ross Perot.
1,280 words (approx. 5.1 pages), 9 sources, APA, $ 43.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that, in light of his post-war approval rating, a win for Bush should have been an easy victory; however, William Clinton, the Democratic challenger, brought to the campaign a straightforward economic campaign, which appealed to the voters because, following the Iraq war, the United States was in a deep recession. The author points out that Bush's campaign of focusing on his experience and trust used by incumbents throughout history; furthermore, Bush brought Clinton's credibility into question, in terms of his lack of military service and other issues. The paper relates that Bush refused to believe that an economic recovery was not occurring, despite higher unemployment and the lowest interest rates since the Kennedy presidency; the result was one of the closest elections: Clinton was elected president.
From the Paper
"It is important to first understand the incumbent's reliance on his popularity in the era of a victory in Iraq, and in the post-cold war atmosphere. In 1992, the American population found themselves in a changed world, where the Berlin Wall and intercontinental missiles no longer existed. The Soviet Union was no longer united, Germany had become united, and the threat of nuclear conflict, so long a staple of the American psyche, had disappeared. Bush had recently completed a successful military attack in Iraq, showing the power and force of the American military."
| |
|
California Recall of the Gray Davis Election, 2004.
A look at the events that led to Arnold Schwarzenegger winning the California election.
1,297 words (approx. 5.2 pages), 9 sources, MLA, $ 43.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the California recall of the Gray Davis election, outlining the major events that took place during the recall election. This paper illustrates why the public of California ousted Gray Davis and how he had betrayed their trust. This paper also highlights the factors that led the famous movie star, Arnold Schwarzenegger, to victory.
From the Paper
"An election held recently to recall California?s former governor Gray Davis indeed proved to be a landmark event in the history of the United States of America. Not only was the former governor dismissed from his office but he was ousted by the legendary movie star Arnold Schwarzenegger. ?A recall has been part of California?s political system since 1911. It provides a mechanism for the public to attempt to remove elected public officials from office before the end of their term of office? (FAQs About Recalls). According to Kevin Shelly, administrator of the recall, ?Election officials from the state's 58 counties reported more than 1.3 million valid signatures, more than the 897,158 needed to trigger the first recall of a governor in California history? (John Mercurio, California Recall Bid Succeed)."
|
|
|
