Political Parties

The Labour Party grew out of the trade union movement and socialist political parties of the 19th century, and continues to describe itself as a party of democratic socialism. Labour was the first political party in Great Britain to stand for the representation of the low-paid working class and it is the working class who are known as the Labour Party grassroots and traditional members and voters.

The party traditionally favors socialist policies such as public ownership of key industries, government intervention in the economy, redistribution of wealth, increased rights for workers and trade unions, and a belief in the welfare state and publicly funded healthcare and education. socialist policies such as public ownership of key industries, government intervention in the economy, redistribution of wealth, increased rights for workers and trade unions, and a belief in the welfare state and publicly funded healthcare and education.

But since the 1980s, under the leadership of Neil Kinnock, John Smith and Tony Blair the party has moved away from its traditional socialist position towards what is often described as the “Third Way” (centrism) adopting some Thatcherite and free-market policies after losing in four consecutive general elections. The Conservative Party on the other hand, descended from the Tory Party, founded in 1678, and is still often referred to as the Tory Party and its politicians, members and supporters as Tories.

It was also known as the Unionist Party in the early 20th century, following the Conservatives’ alliance with that part of the Liberal Party, known as the Liberal Unionists, who opposed their party’s support for Irish Home Rule. The Irish Home Rule Movement articulated a longstanding Irish desire for the repeal of the Act of Union of 1800 by a demand for self-government within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The Conservative Party is considered the centre-right political party in the United Kingdom.

Moderate Two Party System

The effectiveness of the party system in Parliament depends on the relationship between the Government and the Opposition parties. Even though they oppose each other, they still help each other in a way the the opposition: contributes to the creation of policy and legislation through constructive criticism, opposes government proposals they disagree with, and they put forward their own policies in order to improve their chances of winning the next general election.

These things give the party seated choices and other options to ensure that their actions contribute to the betterment of the whole country. Electoral Systems and Voting Behavior The question now is how they are elected. The UK has four types of electoral systems. The first one is the most used, the First Past the Post system. It is the one used to elect the MP’s that seat in the House of Commons. There is a single winner and that is the person with the most votes; there is no requirement that the winner gain an absolute majority of votes.

The next system is block/bloc voting, used in local government elections in England and Wales. It is a voting system for electing several representatives from a single multimember electoral district using a series of check boxes and tallying votes similar to the First Past the Post system. Next is the single transferable vote system, used in Northern Ireland to elect the Assembly, local councils, and Members of the European Parliament, and in Scotland to elect local councils.

It is a preferential voting system designed to minimize “wasted” votes, provide proportional representation, and ensure that votes are explicitly cast for individual candidates rather than party lists. Last is the Party-list system, used in the European Parliament elections in England, Scotland and Wales. It is a voting system that emphasizes proportional representation in elections returning multiple candidates. Voters directly vote for the party. For the past few elections, it is sad to say that the trend in the UK’s voters turnout is not that pleasing to see.

Turnout has fallen from 77% in 1992, 71% in 1997 and 61% in 2001. There had been a slight increase in the 2005 elections but still, it is really low. Now the question is what explains these behaviors. Reasons like the lack of variation in the ideologies of the main parties, the decline in partisanship, the reduction in the popularity of various Party leaderships, the dissatisfaction with parties’ record on public services, education, transport etc. , the lack of interest in the election campaigns and the voter’s apathy due to voters believing their vote will have no effect on the overall outcome. People often have a mindset that their vote is not needed anymore that is why they are contented by just letting the elections pass by. The UK really is a complicated country but studying it is really worthwhile.

Bibliography

1. http://www. parliament. uk
2. http://www. nriol. com http://en. wikipedia. org
3. http://british-house-of-commons. suite101. com
4. Bale, T. (2005) European Politics: A Comparative Introduction, chap. 5 and 6.
5. Webb, P. (2004) ‘Party Responses to the Changing Electoral Markets in Britain’ in Mair, P. et. al. (eds. ) Political Parties and Electoral Change.

Why did political parties spring up in the United States in the 1790s? Why did political parties spring up in the United States in the 1790s? On the 30th April 1789 America’s first President, George Washington was elected into office and was to stay in power until 1797. Within this time the political scope of the United States of America expanded hugely, giving birth to the politics in which we see in America even to this present day.

This essay will tackle the many aspects of the development of political parties; from the economic plans adopted by Alexander Hamilton, which forged America’s first bank in 1791, to the ways in which Americans viewed the Constitution put in place in 1789 causing the birth of Federalist and Republican attitudes throughout the United States of America. A major factor in the creation of political parties came through the influence of Alexander Hamilton. During his time as Secretary of the Treasury to George Washington, Hamilton devised five economic programs as a result of his Nation Government ideology.

Eric Foner argues that: ‘Political divisions first surfaced over the financial plan developed… in 1790 and 1791’[1]. Hamilton’s financial models won strong support from the American financiers and manufacturers, and the models would only work if America created close links with Great Britain. This ideology sparked resistance from Jefferson and Madison, as they both believed that ‘the future lay in Westward expansion’[2] and thus, the foundations for political divisions were in place due to the ideological differences between Jefferson and Hamilton.

Therefore, it can be argued that Hamilton was the main initial influence to instigate political thought in America. However, although political divisions began to emerge over Hamilton’s financial plans, it was the events that occurred in Europe that acted as a catalyst for creating two coherent political parties. At first, the French Revolution didn’t stir any conflict between Jefferson and Hamilton but after the execution of King Louis XVI, war broke out between France and Great Britain and inevitably against Jefferson and Hamilton.

On the one hand, Jefferson argued that ‘Revolution marked a historic victory for the idea of popular self-government’[3] however Hamilton; as stated by Bruce Miroff, ‘set himself resolutely against the rising tide of democracy’[4] and the events of the Revolution made the links with Britain even more significant for him. Economically America was torn. Alexander Hamilton’s economic plans for the federal government to pay off the revolutionary war debts, and the creation of a national bank were vastly disputed.

Thomas Jefferson expressed massive disputes with the policies, as he thought of them as unconstitutional and would create class barriers. The historian Ryan P. Randolph argued in favour of Jefferson’s views, stating, “It was not in the best interests of the landowners they represented. ”[5] Jefferson’s view of a development of patriarchal society is also supported by historian John P. Kaminski who argued that “The foundation of the Bank of America would ally the federal government with wealthy shareholders… the assumption of the state’s wartime debts by the federal government would also bountifully benefit this favoured class. [6] Hamilton however admired Britain’s reforms, which restored its financial health, and therefore modelled American financial policies in part on William Pitt’s in an attempt to restore America’s own finances. However the success of Hamilton’s program depended on cooperation with Britain, as duty on imports provided a major source of federal income and most imports came from Britain. Jefferson however is argued to have a deeply hostile towards Britain. His somewhat Anglophobia is argued to have played a huge part in his drifting from Hamilton and the formation of the traditional Jeffersonian viewpoints in which founded the Republican Party.

However there wasn’t a complete disagreement over Britain, as Jefferson admired the technological advances in Britain, but didn’t see the US industry base in a similar manner as Americans “worked for themselves and not for others. ”[7] Hamilton and Jefferson retained explicitly different opinions on economics, showing bias towards small government power, and a large, somewhat Conservative approach, using large government power to rule the entire country, causing divisions in opinions and the development of the Federalist and Republican Parties. Social divisions can also be attributed to the formation of political parties n America as the new Federalist scheme caused class barriers throughout America. This can be seen in the case of farmers who were pushed towards Republican opinion by the 1790s. In 1792 the Militia Act organised 18-24 year olds into militia units to act against Native Indians, however these were later used against farmers as a way of enforcing the excise taxes places on items such as Whiskey (passed by congress in 1791). This caused hardship and farmers began to revolt by tarring and feathering. In 1794 the government led 1500 militia to West Pennsylvania in a similar resistance to the Stamp Act’s Boston Massacre in 1774.

This as a whole caused a division between the farming community and the government, which led to further support of Jefferson and the Republican party as farmers felt like the big government leadership was only working in favour of richer classes and causing splits in society, which in turn were represented through political parties. Henceforth, following the French Revolution, the two main ideologies were established, the parties became increasingly coherent and in the mid 1790’s they developed into the Federalist and the Republicans.

Therefore, it can be argued that without the French Revolution there would be no political parties because the war against France and Great Britain caused a split, not only ideologically but geographically in America. Therefore, Hamilton’s input definitely begun the era of politics but he was not the most influential factor in the overall development of the first political parties. The Constitution may also be argued to be a contributing factor in the development of political parties as some argue that Federalists ‘loosely’ followed the Constitution, whereas Jeffersonians ‘strictly’ followed it.

The historian John H. Aldrich argues that “Ratification of the Constitution launched America’s “great experiment,” testing the viability of democracy. This experiment began before national political parties were invented”[8] and therefore the constitution forced Americans into a democratic society in which made it somewhat compulsory to form an opinion, which was expressed through support of political parties. However, historian Peter W. Schramm argues, “The American Founders believed that parties were antithetical to republican government. [9] This to some extent could be due to an American desire to not have political parties, and therefore be able to express personal opinions through a democracy rather than two distinctly polarized opinions. Nevertheless, it would be almost impossible to argue that the ratification of the Constitution did not have any effect on the development of political parties, and in fact one may argue that until the Constitution was implemented, Americans were unable to express their political opinions in a democratic manner, as there was no field for expression.

The Constitution also had an effecting glance on the “people’s” view of Thomas Jefferson, the supposed “American founding father. If Thomas Jefferson had any authority to influence the political uprising in the States when he was in charge and seated as president, it certainly wasn’t shown when Jefferson took up the position of the secretary of state as Senator William Maclay observed, “He sits in a lounging manner…His whole figure has a loose and shackling air. [10] Maclay demonstrates that the role of presidency has a profound effect on the subject and ultimately Jefferson. The fact that Jefferson was seated in an important political establishment, and seated in an undignified manner, questions Jefferson’s real commitment to the political affairs happening at that time or was he biding his time, waiting for the next presidential election? The political uprising showed that presidential influence could have a massive impact on national affairs.

Although Thomas Jefferson was in France at the time the Federal Constitution was introduced in 1787, he was able to influence the development of the federal government through his correspondence. Jefferson played a major role in the planning, design, and construction of a national capitol and the federal district. In the various public offices he held, Jefferson sought to establish a federal government of limited powers. In the 1800 presidential election, Jefferson and Aaron Burr deadlocked, creating a constitutional crisis.

However, once Jefferson received sufficient votes in the election, he and his long-term friend, John Adams, established the principle that power would be passed peacefully from losers to victors in presidential elections. Jefferson called his election triumph “the second American Revolution. ” There were many problems and arguments however, confronting the Founding Fathers like, for example, slavery. The North versus the South divide was deepening. Jefferson himself was a wealthy plantation owner and owned many slaves.

Although he knew it was wrong as he said it was “a moral depravity” and “a hideous blot”[11], he couldn’t give up his wealth and his earnings. Many historians have debated whether Jefferson was an actual opposition of slavery or not as he owned such a large number of slaves himself. Jefferson also commented that slavery presented the greatest threat to the survival of the “new American nation”. This “new American nation” would see these political parties spring up and finally abolish slavery in 1865 in the 13th Amendment.

Nonetheless Jefferson had an impact on the political parties and their views on such subjects like slavery through his ability to become “a captivating talker and a natural leader”[12]James Madison, Jefferson’s succeeded in the presidential role, fully supported the Constitution and its values as it was a huge factor in the political restoration of society of the United States. Madison was to come into power in the 1808 election after Thomas Jefferson retired due to illness and old age. The creation of these political parties due to the Constitution being erected is an underpinning factor why Jefferson remained in power for a second term.

This was due to the fact that not only did Jefferson had little opposition from Burr or Madison, but Jefferson also campaigned against the Constitution and its values as he thought that with too much power, the government would quickly become oppressive and dominant. To conclude, it would be impossible to imagine the creation of political parties in the United States without taking into account the underpinning factor that is the introduction of the Constitution in the United States of America.

Without the Constitution the economic situations such as the creation of a federal bank, the implication of social barriers including those found in farming communities which essentially led to a split in opinions, and most importantly, the political divisions – most famously seen in the case of the Jeffersonian-Hamilton case would have not arose leading to the creation of the Republican and Federalist parties in America. Without the Constitution, it may be argued that America would have remained in a consensus, and therefore the Constitution itself must be seen as a trigger for the development of political parties in America.

Bibliography Why Parties? : The Origin and Transformation of Political Parties in America – John H. Aldrich, University of Chicago Press, 1 Jun 1995- pg. 6 Jefferson at Monticello, Charlottesville – Bear, James, A. Jr. – University Press of Virginia, 1967. George Washington: A Life, Ron Chernow – Page 599 “Give Me Liberty! ” – Eric Foner (Seagull Third Edition) (Vol. 1), W. W. Norton ; Company, 2011 Sketches of Debate in the First Senate – William Maclay et al, Lane S. Hart, Printer, 1880, Page 212 Thomas Jefferson: Philosopher and Politician – John P.

Kaminski, UW-Madison Libraries Parallel Press, 1 Jan 2006 – pg. 54 A History of the United States: Inventing America – P. Maier et al, W. W. Norton ; Company Ltd. , 2002 Alexander Hamilton’s Economic Plan: Solving Problems in America’s New Economy – Ryan P. Randolph, The Rosen Publishing Group, 1 May 2003 – pg. 20. American Political Parties and Constitutional Politics – Peter W. Schramm, Bradford P. Wilson – pg. 17 ———————– [1] Eric Foner: ‘Give Me Liberty’ Page 282 [2] Eric Foner: ‘Give Me Liberty’ Page 284 3] Eric Foner: ‘Give Me Liberty’ Page 286 [4] Bruce Miroff: ‘Hamilton: The Aristocrat as Visionary’ Page 43 [5] Page 20 – Alexander Hamilton’s Economic Plan: Solving Problems in America’s New Economy – Ryan P. Randolph, The Rosen Publishing Group, 1 May 2003 [6] Page 54 – Thomas Jefferson: Philosopher and Politician – John P. Kaminski, UW-Madison Libraries Parallel Press, 1 Jan 2006 [7] A History of the United States: Inventing America – P. Maier et al, W. W. Norton & Company Ltd. , 2002 [8] Page 6 – Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Political Parties in America – John H. Aldrich, University of Chicago Press, 1 Jun 1995 [9] Page 17 – American Political Parties and Constitutional Politics – Peter W. Schramm, Bradford P. Wilson [10] Sketches of Debate in the First Senate – William Maclay, Lane S. Hart, Printer, 1880, Page 212 [11] Bear, James, A. Jr. – Jefferson at Monticello, Charlottesville – University Press of Virginia, 1967. [12] George Washington: A Life, Ron Chernow – Page 599

In the United States there exists largely a dichotomy with respect to parties of political affiliation, and while other parties can and do exist, most people refer to the US as it is now as a “two-party state. ” The two parties, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, have existed in our country for over one hundred fifty-three years each, and the struggle for power in which they both partake has been no small matter, becoming more and more hotly contested as time goes on.

While both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party (GOP herein) seem starkly opposite at surface level, the two often have similar goals, aspirations and plans for our country, with the main point of contention being the methods by which such things are brought about. Fiscally, the Democrats and GOP both want a free economy with as little national debt as sustainably possible, but, for the most part, the Democrats favor government action, and the GOP favors private action. With respect to social policy, the Democrats favor more progressive legislation, and the GOP favors more traditional legislation.

As the US stands currently, in a recession, no American could disagree that everyone’s goal for the economy is to get out of the recession. The real question is “How do we do it? ” Republicans say that we should cut spending, cut taxes and allow those cuts in taxes to promote job creation in the private sector: jobs come from businesses, and when the people who own the businesses have more money, they can hire more people to do more work, which would raise GDP and reduce the national debt.

Democrats say that we should raise taxes to increase revenue, and use the increased revenue to sponsor various economic stimuli to promote greater productivity and job creation. This sort of top-down/bottom-up perspective has led many Americans to believe the motivations of the two parties to be a conflict of social classes, with Republicans representing largely the rich, and Democrats representing largely the poor.

Undoubtedly, the largest differences between the two major parties exist in the social platforms of each. The GOP is composed mostly of those who are socially conservative, the Democratic Party, of those who are socially liberal, but there are certainly those within each party whose beliefs vary. The Democratic Party generally supports legislation promoting social tolerance, i. e. policies which limit the government’s ability to tell any person what to do, provided that they not infringe upon the rights of others.

This amounts to policies in favor of things gay marriage and marijuana legalization and policies opposed to abortion restrictions, welfare drugs tests and public funding of religious institutions and schools. The GOP generally supports social legislation which maintains the status quo, protecting the foundation of America which those before us have provided. In this manner, the GOP usually favors legislation that protects the sanctity of marriage (i. e. ne man, one woman), prevents drug addicts from receiving welfare and prevents people from harming themselves with drug use, and the GOP generally opposes legislation that would allow any of the previous things to occur. Interestingly, however, the GOP strongly supports the exercise of the Second Amendment to its fullest capacity, opposing almost any gun control law, while the Democrats generally favor gun control with respect to some of the more dangerously liable guns such as assault rifles or even some semi-automatic rifles.

In terms of demographics and geography, the Democrats and Republicans are quite contrasting. By and large, the Republican Party is most powerful in the South and Midwest, while the Democratic Party gains its power mostly from the North and the West coast. Republicans are more likely to be older, more wealthy, more religious and white (though this obviously does not mean all Republicans are white). Democrats are more likely to be younger, more educated and more ethnically varied than the Republican Party.

These snapshots into the average Democrat or the average Republican must be taken with a grain of salt, however, as demographics and geographic are not causes of the party composition, but merely correlations which have been concluded. While the Democrats and Republicans have long been considered bitter rivals, and for the most part it is true, the two major parties in America are not quite as disparate and incongruous as many would think.

They both have the same major goals for the economy, but only the methodology differs. They have different ideas for social policy, stemming from the more religious and more secular worldviews which most Republicans and most Democrats respectively hold. With the differences aside from both, the Democrats and Republicans in political offices do come together to prevent the one which they fear most: the success of any third party. Both parties will stop at nothing to maintain whatever power they each have.

One will be making a wrong assumption to believe that the political parties we hear and see today just sprang and start existing in a day. These parties have come a long way and definitely have where they are coming from and where they are going. In this essay, I will attempt a brief and concise of the major political parties in America. This I intend to achieve in the following paragraphs.

First, the major political parties that I will focus on in my essay will be the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, not that there are no other political parties but time and space will not allow me to make an exposition into their history. Apart from the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, we have other majority parties like Libertarian Party, the Constitution Party and the Green Party as majority parties.

The Democratic Party has come a long way to be the oldest political party in America and is presumably the oldest in the world. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison founded the Democratic Party in 1792 with other rivals of the then Federalist Party. The party was called Democratic-Republican Party. This was the platform that gave Thomas Jefferson the opportunity to be the Democratic President of the United States in 1800. The list of presidents the Democratic Party has produced is; Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Quincy Adams, William J Bryan, Franklin D Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton.

The Republican Party is the second majority party in America. Anti-slavery expansion activists and modernizers founded it in 1854. The popularity of the Republican Party rose when Abraham Lincoln was voted president to be the foremost Republican president in the America. One notable thing is the role the party played in the American Civil War and Reconstruction. The party has had the seat in the white house under the auspices of Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush. In terms of position, the Republican Party is rather socially conventional and economically tolerant.

The Libertarian Party was founded in December of 1971 and is regarded as the third largest party in the United States. The party has its members in public office and is most popular of the other continuing third parties.

Another third party that is worth mentioning is the Green Party that was founded in 1984. The philosophies that are linked with this political party are Green Politics, Liberalism and Progressivism. The party gained prominence during the Raphael Nadar’s campaign in 1996 and 2000.

Also, it will be important to consider the Constitution Party of America, which was founded in 1992 and was regarded as the U.S. Taxpayers Party but the name of the party was altered in 1999. The party can be credited to have produced a public officer in Montana by the name Rick Jore.

Reference:

Greenfield, Steve (March 20, 2005) “The Decline of the Green Party.” CommonDreams.org

www.prenhall.com/magleby

Today, the politics of the United States government is controlled by two dominant political parties: the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. These two political parties dominated US politics from 1860 to the present. This is not to say that the US electoral system does not allow the existence of a multiple party system. It should be noted that the development of a two-party system in the United States was due perhaps to the relative contradiction of ideology and platforms of government between these two parties.

US voters historically perceived this difference as necessary because of the need to maximize the saliency of political choice. When one set of policies failed, the voters had the option of voting the policies of the other party. This is called polarization. Hence, an understanding of the ideology of each political party is needed. In 1854, anti-slavery politicians met at Ripon, Wisconsin to form the Republican Party. After a year, the party grew rapidly displacing the Whig Party as the primary opposition party to the Democratic Party.

In 1859, it nominated Abraham Lincoln as president in the 1860 election. After the election of Abraham Lincoln, the party became a symbol of anti-slavery, and after the war, the period of Reconstruction. Early Republicans advocated the slogan ‘free labor, free land, and free men. ’ The Republican Party believed that class mobility is an important factor in economic development. According to Republican ideology, individuals have the right to determine their economic status, given economic circumstances. The party also advocated a countrywide redistribution of land.

Early Republicans believed that giving away government-owned land would rapidly end slavery. From 1859 to 1865, the party was actively anti-slavery in the Western territories as a means to check the intentions of the Confederacy. After the Civil War, the party changed some of its political beliefs. It supported big businesses, the annexation of Hawaii, and generous pensions for Union veterans. With the rapid growth of the transportation and manufacturing sectors, the party advocated the implementation of a countrywide subsidy program and the imposition of higher tariffs on foreign goods.

Today, the party advocates a Keynesian approach to economic development, emphasizing the need for the government to adjust its expenditures based on growth patterns. The party also supports lowering both the optimal tax rates and the general tariff rates as a means to boost the economy. Social welfare is deemphasized in present Republican ideology. The origin of the Democratic Party can be traced back to the party founded by Jefferson, Madison, and other politicians opposing the Federalists.

The modern Democratic Party, however, was founded with the election of Andrew Jackson to the presidency. From 1860 to 1920, the party positioned itself to the left of the Republican Party on a number of economic, political, and social issues. The election of Woodrow Wilson revived the influence of the party in policy-making, after 30 years of political hibernation. In 1932, Franklin Roosevelt was elected president of the United States. His New Deal program increased the political base of the party, and became the economic framework of the US government until the 1970s.

The ideology of the Democratic Party differs from that of the Republican Party in three respects. First, the party advocates social liberalism, emphasizing the institutionalization of affirmative action and social freedom. Second, the party believes in a free-enterprise system regulated by government intervention. Third, the party believes that the government should play a role in alleviating poverty and the use of progressive taxation. Democratic ideology asserts that ‘economic development is assumed to be a function of social progress. ’

I learned that both the federal and state governments are governed by a system of checks and balances. The government is divided into three branches which are assumed to be equal in integrity and power. Both in federal and state governments, the legislatures act as the lawmaking body. The executive branch of government approves or vetoes legislations approved by Congress. The legislative branch approves the budget, reserves the right to declare war, and examines the operations of the government through committee hearings and investigations.

These powers act as a check to the actions of the executive branch. The judicial branch of government reserves the power to examine the constitutionality of statutes passed by Congress. This is called ‘power of judicial review. ’ This power acts as a check to the legislative branch. It can also make recommendations to the federal government on issues of legality/constitutionality of specific government actions/policies. The members of the judicial branch are appointed by the president, with the concurrence of Congress.

This serves as a check to the power of the judicial branch. Comments Regarding the Instructor, the Course, and Class Requirements The instructor is very efficient in giving information about the American government, pointing out salient issues and problems. The course is a good starting point towards a more deep and critical understanding of the history of the US government. Class requirements are by no means heavy. Much of the class requirements reflect the learning experience necessary for a full understanding of US politics and governance.

The American system of election is very expensive, time consuming and tedious to the aspiring presidential candidates. The length of the process determines the prosperity of a candidate from any political party. Although this time range favors some candidates its complexity and cost disqualifies other candidates.

Since not all top party leaders are interested in the presidency, the aspiring candidates have to meticulously orchestrate their announcement of candidature to capture the public while at the same time win the approval and loyalty of their leaders. This occurs during the caucuses and primaries in which starts the road to the White House as argued by (Lader, 2006).

This system has flaws for states like Iowa that still relies on caucuses. The suitable candidate can easily be locked out of the race early if they lack popularity with the party heads.

The numerous questions and hole punching that is involved in these levels can easily elevate or disqualify a candidate depending on their eloquence, smartness or simply their political correctness at that particular time.

The highly televised primaries on the other hand have rather seen luminaries in larger states like New York and California succeed. Celebrity entertainers have recently been used to rally support for candidates during such primaries. Such trends show modern day success stories for democracy.

The future of election currently relies on modern day technology and chat rooms that are famous especially with the youthful population. Showbiz and technology such as Facebook and Twitter are the next level of campaign strategies since they have the most audience of the voting population. Campaign themes also have credited to the success or failure of modern day candidates.

2. Political Parties.

The growth of democracy in the U.S is credited to the evolution of political parties and their strong affiliations to the public. The political parties have fashioned themselves around the figure of the president for administrative and political influences.

Although this is fashioned to enable uniqueness of voice and solidarity in opinions, it has alienated the public from decision making compared to their British counterparts. This brings about personal political ambitions to the parties, where presidents only push their aspirations while sidelining the shared collective responsibility for the entire nation and the political parties.

The problem is that the public has no say in decision making since the president does not have to consult the Congress in decision making. The failed link between the people and their presidents thus causes dissatisfaction and polarization.

3. The Interest Groups.

In light of the common good of the American society, the power of the interest groups can only be sustained to its least degree possible. If not, their extremism of expression tends to only favor the thought of certain groups and alienate other groups. These groups are small; the allegiance to any of these groups automatically paralyses the success of a presidential candidate.

These interest groups have drawn allies in the mainstream political parties thus dividing the country in lines of opinion and policies. The strong constitutional structure silenced these groups yet the concept of pluralism enhances cooperation while reducing polarization of the country. This maintains freedom, versatility and balance of political power.

4. Conclusion.

The systems of election and campaign in the primaries and the caucuses are truly beneficial to ensure transparency. Unfortunately, the tedious nature of this journey can be reviewed by the use of technology and inclusion of pluralism that favors the power balance. The American population should therefore be encouraged to embrace chat room groups and pluralism to motivate the growth of their democracy.

Reference

Lader, C. (2006). How to prepare for the AP U.S. Government & Politics
Barron’s How to prepare for the AP US Government and Politics Advanced        Placement Examination. Barron’s AP Unites States Government & Politics (4th          ed). New York: Barron’s Educational Series.