| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "FOUR CLOSE U S PRESIDENTIAL": |
|
|
Four Close U.S. Presidential Elections, 2001.
Discusses 12th Amendment to the Constitution (the Electoral College) & elections of 1824, 1876, 1888 & 2000.
1,350 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 3 sources, $ 47.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"The Electoral College has served its purpose under the Constitution for more than 150 years. It has operated quietly, smoothly and effectively, so much so that the general public is hardly aware of its existence except when there is a close election (Hoffman, 935).
The most complicated bit of governmental machinery which the modern world has to exhibit is that which is employed in the selection of the chief executive officer...for the United States...It is almost marvelous that any people should have preserved political unity for a century under such a loose and decentralized system of election of its chief..."
| |
|
The Presidency of the U.S. Government, 2002.
Looks at the original intentions of the framers of the U.S. Constitution with regard to the role of Congress.
650 words (approx. 2.6 pages), 2 sources, $ 26.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The framers of the U.S. Constitution intended to assign more power to Congress than to the presidency. Bearing in mind that Americans had waged revolution against monarchy, the framers intended to put a check on presidential power and gave Congress the power to override a presidential veto and to impeach and remove a president. However, the history of U.S. politics reveals that the presidency is a constraining force on Congress and presidents have frequently used the constitutional power to veto legislation passed by Congress.
| |
|
U.S. Foreign Policy, 2003.
Three separate essays on U.S. foreign policy.
2,300 words (approx. 9.2 pages), 6 sources, APA, $ 79.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper presents three separate essays on U.S. foreign policy, dealing with nuclear arms reduction; unilateralism versus multilateralism and the role of multilateralism to serve American interests; and presidential power in making foreign policy.
| |
|
Democracy in the U.S. and Scotland, 2004.
A comparative analysis of the United States and Scotland?s government structures.
1,773 words (approx. 7.1 pages), 5 sources, MLA, $ 57.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines how different countries with widely disparate forms of government all lay claim to being democracies. It discusses how many European parliamentary-style governments, for example, call themselves democracies and how, in contrast, more centralized, presidential governments claim to be democracies, as well. It analyzes these two different models by exploring the governmental structures of both the U.S. and of Scotland. It shows how both countries have democratic forms of government, which are premised on duly elected bodies acting as representatives of the interests of their constituencies. It also shows how the two countries differ in the way this representation is best made.
From the Paper
"Scottish history dates back to 1034, with the welding together of Scots, Britons, Picts and Angles into a single Scottish kingdom. Throughout the next centuries, however, Scotland would have to fend off constant attempts at invasion from attackers such as the William the Lion in 1165 and Edward I in 1290. In 1297, William Wallace initiates the first Scottish rebellion against the English. By 1320, the Scots proclaim their independence in the Declaration of Abroath. The first Scottish parliament is convened in 1326, and England eventually recognizes Scotland?s independence in 1328. Despite the recognition of independence, wars continued over the next centuries. By 1707, the Act of Union merges England and Scotland into the United Kingdom."
| |
|
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."
| |
|
U.S. Presidential Elections, 2002.
A review of the 1984 presidential election compared to that of 2000.
3,395 words (approx. 13.6 pages), 13 sources, MLA, $ 96.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper reviews and compares the 1984 and 2000 presidential elections in the U.S.A. Beginning with a brief history of the electoral/political system in America, the paper than offers a look at a number of issues, comparing the outcome in 1984 to that in 2000. The first issue is that of the candidates themselves, followed by the role of the media during both campaigns, an analysis of the victories, the gender gap, third party impacts and finally a conclusion which looks at the overall picture of the 2 elections.
From the Paper
"What distinguishes the 2000 campaign from the 1984 campaign is that neither is an incumbent for the office they are running for. Both are members of the Baby Boom Generation, the first time in history this has happened, since both of President Clinton's opponents were from the G.I. Generation. Vice President Al Gore is running to extend the eight-year Democratic control of the White House. The son of the late Senator Albert Gore Sr., the Vice President has 24 years' experience in government as a Congressman, Senator and Vice-President."
| |
|
Presidential Elections in the U.S. and Taiwan, 2001.
Compares the 2000 campaigns in both countries. Nature of 2-party system. Role of media. 1984 Presidential campaign. Gender gap. Relationship of Taiwan & China. Change of power in Taiwan.
5,625 words (approx. 22.5 pages), 17 sources, $ 135.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"The election in Taiwan in March 2000 was significant because it involved the first time in the history of the Republic of China that power had changed from the traditional ruling party, the Kuomintang or KMT, to another party, the Democratic Progressive Party, which had very different policies for the governing of the nation and its relations with mainland China and the rest of the world. Examining the change of power between the Clinton Administration and the coming Bush Administration as a result of Campaign 2000 may reveal some interesting information regarding the role of media and the changeover between parties."
| |
|
Two U.S. Presidential Elections, 2002.
An analysis of the 1984 and 2000 elections.
2,925 words (approx. 11.7 pages), 14 sources, $ 103.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Analysis of the 1984 and 2000 elections. Background of the two-party system. Significance of the 2000 election as the first time in 124 years that the candidate who won the national popular vote lost the electoral vote. Compares the candidates of 1984 and 2000. Role of the media in Presidential elections.
From the Paper
"Analysis of the U.S. Presidential Elections of 1984 and 2000
Introduction - The Birth of the Two Party System
Prior to the election of 1840, America did not have a two-party political system. Federalists and Democratic-Republicans contested elections in the early republic, but they were more representations of class and regional power than political parties. From 1812 to 1824, during the "era of good feelings," there was only one political party, and Presidents James Madison and James Monroe ran virtually unopposed (Shulman, M1).
After a 4-year interregnum in which Andrew Jackson - the man who won the most electoral votes in the election of 1824 - was denied his victory in the House of Representatives in favor of John Quincy Adams, Jacksonian Democracy - a further development of..."
| |
|
The 2000 U.S. Presidential Election, 2006.
An analysis of Vice President Gore's concession speech and President George W. Bush's victory speech.
5,250 words (approx. 21.0 pages), 6 sources, APA, $ 130.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper uses the Kenneth Burke Pentad approach to analyze the speeches of Vice President Al Gore when he conceded the 2000 presidential election and President George W. Bush when he declared victory. The paper begins with a brief discussion of the contentious nature of the 2000 elections, culminating in the courtroom drama over the recount in Florida. Next, the paper provides a detailed explanation and overview of Burke's pentad approach to communication, which the paper then applies to the two speeches. The paper concludes that while reflected differently, the speeches had essentially the same message: the process is bigger than the person.
I. Introduction
II. Introduction to Kenneth Burke's
Pentad Theory of Persuasive Communication
III. How Ratio Leads to Motive
IV. Perfection
V. The Pentad of the Speeches
1. Gore's Concession
2. Bush's Victory Speech
A. The Act
B. The Scene
C. The Agents
D. The Agency
E. Purpose
VI. Ratio
A. Gore's Ratio
B. Bush's Ratio
VII. Gore's Motive
VIII. Bush's Motive
IX. Perfection
X. Conclusion
From the Paper
"December 13, 2000 concluded a Presidential Election unlike any that proceeded it. The date marked the concession of Vice President Al Gore, to future president George W. Bush. It was the closest United States Presidential Election of all time, and it concluded in the Supreme Court of the United States. The decision of that court would ultimately place the most powerful political position in the world, the Presidency of the United States, to George W. Bush, the governor of Texas. The election was filled with controversy, including an apparent flawed system of voting, a state, Florida, responsible for deciding the election, that was run by the to be President's younger brother, and a mere count of 300 votes that would change the future forever."
| |
|
The U.S. Presidential and British Parliamentary Systems, 1999.
A look at how the systems of the world's two most stable democracies differ, especially in how they derive their authority from the people.
974 words (approx. 3.9 pages), 3 sources, $ 34.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"Although the need for government to have leadership that provides direction is universal among states, the form that the government leadership assumes varies. Government structure varies significantly between the United States and Great Britain, despite that each is a democracy and share a common history. In fact, the common history of the United States and Great Britain suggests reasons to explain the broad differences between the governments of each respective state. In the wake of the American Revolution, the people of the United States rejected the forms and institutions, most notably a monarchy and Parliament, of British government as well as British sovereignty. Possessing a democratic presidential government, the United States has two separately elected agencies of government. The executive and legislative branches of the United States, the President and Congress, respectively, both derive their power from the people, whereas in Great Britain only the legislative branch, Parliament, derives its power from the people, as the executive is elected by Members of Parliament, thus effectively combining both branches within a single institution. The Parliamentary system in Great Britain and the Presidential system in the United States both have histories marked by an absence of abject failure, yet neither system can be considered truly perfect. Consequently, the analyst cannot conclude that either system is better; rather, he must recognize that there are merits and faults in both systems. The Parliamentary system tends to legislate efficiently, whereas a presidential system tends toward gridlock. However, the presidential system grants both elected representatives and citizens greater influence in government. The Parliamentary system tends to favor Prime Ministers who have much experience, whereas the Presidential system favors Presidents who are responsive to the general will of the people."
| |
|
Four Views Of The U.S. Power Structure, 1997.
Discusses the nature of the elite power structure in the US as seen by C. Wright Mills, Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X and Tom Hayden.
2,025 words (approx. 8.1 pages), 4 sources, $ 71.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"In 1956, sociologist C. Wright Mills wrote, The Power Elite, in an effort to publicize his hypothesis concerning what had gone wrong with American democracy. Mills believed that powerful and wealthy elites had been able to gradually take control of our government and that that process had been facilitated by "ordinary men" whose ambivalence and lack of understanding of the functions of a democracy had allowed this situation to occur. The elite have been able to consolidate their hold on government because government itself had gradually transformed in the last hundred or so years from a decentralized, servant of the people into an oversized, bureaucratized, and over-centralized behemoth (Mills, 1956). Furthermore, he felt that the ordinary men who comprised the bourgeoisie lacked the abilities and desire to take their government back and infuse true democratic principles into their ..."
| |
|
The U.S. and the U.N. Rights of the Child Convention, 2002.
This paper discusses why the U.S. hasn't signed the treaty on the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child.
5,060 words (approx. 20.2 pages), 8 sources, MLA, $ 127.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper presents a detailed examination, written from a legal standpoint, of the treaty on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Children. The paper concludes the U. S. is willing to intervene in other international problems, such as oil; and therefore, it should make a public statement to protect the world?s most precious commodity, children, by supporting the treaty.
Table of Contents
Introduction
What Is It
What It Protects
What about the Legal Standpoint
Why Is Treaty Needed
Why Won't the U.S. Sign?
Reasons for Signing the Treaty
From the Paper
"While there are many political reasons that the US may refuse to sign the treaty, one of the chief causes for concern might be the establishment of an International Criminal Court. Many UN delegates support the idea of an International Criminal Court but the United States has been steadfast in its refusal to agree. An international criminal court might begin the slippery slope of descent to the power of individual nations when it comes to many issues including the treaty.If the international criminal court gains favor and power in the future it is feasible that the court could be used to enforce the treaty."
| |
|
Multiculturalism in the U.S. and U.K., 2005.
This paper presents an analysis regarding the doctrine of multiculturalism.
904 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 4 sources, MLA, $ 31.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this article, the writer discusses the doctrine of multiculturalism. The writer offers an analysis of why such a doctrine is problematic. In order to examine the issue of multiculturalism, the writer uses examples from the public education systems in the U.S. and Great Britain to show the difficulties in treating all cultures as equal.
From the Paper
"Multiculturalism is defined by the Ayn Rand institute as the view that all cultures are equal. While this doctrine is often adopted in spirit if not in principle in the U.S. and Great Britain, multiculturalism is problematic as a term. For if all cultures are equal we cannot say that there is one superior way of being, one superior set of values or one superior method of educating individuals. However societies like America and Great Britain often adopt such methods values ... "
| |
|
Presidential Foreign Policy, 2006.
An exploration of foreign policy towards the U.S.S.R. and then Russia under U.S. presidents.
1,190 words (approx. 4.8 pages), 4 sources, MLA, $ 40.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper compares, contrasts and critiques U.S. foreign policy toward the U.S.S.R. (and today Russia) under U.S. presidents Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush. The paper studies each man's philosophies about foreign policy in general. Next, the paper looks to how the president shaped and implemented his policies in to achieve specific goals within the U.S.-U.S.S.R. relationship. The paper also more generally explores each president's ideals and agendas for the U.S., and attempts to understand how his foreign policy toward Russia played into the achievement of those ideals.
From the Paper
"Each president faced different conditions in the country and the world when they took office. Nixon took over the Vietnam War from Johnson, and this colored how he dealt with superpower the USSR during his administration. Since the Communists were funding the North Vietnamese, one of Nixon's policies was to cut off relations with the USSR until they withheld weapons from North Vietnam. Nixon and his National Security Advisor, Henry Kissinger, dubbed this policy "linkage." Author Ambrose notes, "The United States would withhold favors from the Russians until they behaved in Southeast Asia by cutting off the arms flow to Hanoi. Peace would follow" (Ambrose 313). Of course, that was not the case, and most of Nixon's policies revolved around ending the war in Indochina while developing all-encompassing agreements with the USSR to help ensure lasting peace around the world. The Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT), meant to limit weapons on both sides, were some of the most important foreign policy decisions Nixon made regarding the USSR during his administration. In addition, during the Nixon administration Congress passed the War Powers Act, which severely limited the president's power in foreign aggression. All of these occurrences were important in foreign policy, especially with the Soviets."
| |
|
Effects of Religion on the 2000 Presidential Election, 2001.
A discussion of how religion had a significant role in the presidential campaigns of the year 2000 in the U.S.
2,510 words (approx. 10.0 pages), 11 sources, $ 76.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper demonstrates that religion and personal worldview played an increasingly public and important role among candidates and voters during the 2000 Presidential election process in the U.S. The author examines the influence religion had on various political parties such as Democrats, Republicans, and other parties.
From the Paper
"If the only stance one can take in public life is to remain mute about one?s most deeply held beliefs, then the election process is diminished. The American public requires a basis for knowing and evaluating the core values that shape our leaders? actions and policies. Without the increased role of religion in the presidential election process, voters would be forced to speculate as to what the underlying political philosophy of a potential president might be. If values rooted in religious tradition (or any other philosophical worldview, for that matter) are an important element of a candidate?s decision-making process, the public ought to know this. Religious discussion only helps in the selection of good leaders who desire to lead the country down a moral road."
|
|
|
