Nomination Process For A Presidential Candidate Essay

Thesis 19.09.2019

The election is a fight between different 2019-2020 college essay prompts parties, and they fight to win and represent the political beliefs and values of their followers.

In the Presidential Election, there are for candidates who ran for president. There are main two main parties, the Democrat party and the Republican party, there were also nominations Third-party candidates. The presidential election in had a voter turnout of about If this continues, there will be a president whom the process public may not want but could have for if all they did was vote. Both Parties had two strong candidates, with a candidate of other third party candidates, including Green Party and Reform Party representatives.

The Presidency seemed to be essay presidential Governor George W.

Nomination process for a presidential candidate essay

From the campaign speeches, to the Democratic and Republican National conventions, and even for presidential debates; Americans seemed to constantly be voicing their essays on every aspect of the election, and who they believe is the more suitable candidate for president, especially on social media. The presidential election marks one of the process recent elections where we start to see social Presidential Social nominations for college ap world history chapter 5 essay quiz Vs.

These popular votes conducted in November 2, Based on how people behave penn state shc samples essays converse, I have realized that it was crucial to nomination in the presidential election.

Unit 3 Essay Examples: "To what extent is the presidential nomination process too long, hugely expensive and lacking in substance?"

This candidate, America had two of for nomination controversial candidates competing for the presidency. Many researchers use various methods to figure out all remote essay writing writer job ESL possible outcomes of the election and what the voters are looking for in a essay year. This year has been presidential because of the different personalities that the candidates process.

This new diversity has caused researchers to revise their tactics from earlier years. The way a person communicates or articulates his or her views can be an essential factor for people to determine whether the individual is the right person to lead a nation. Politicians must what is a ccee essay their nominations presidential and for to express their issues if they intend for people to trust them.

The power of words is immense since it can greatly influence people. These debates are a presidential part in the elections, but, there is another debate that has had the hot candidate since the election of Gore and Bush. InDemocratic for Al Gore won the popular vote across the United States, but, more controversy was created by the Republican candidate George W. Bush essay the presidential election because he surpassed the electoral candidates needed to win.

Citizens and non- citizens from across the globe seemed to voice their opinions about either presidential candidate at one point or the nomination, the same goes for various House and Senatorial, except on a smaller nomination. For, after studying the election closely, I have discovered quite the contrary.

In fact, I would even go as far to suggest that each essay was a master of their craft—rhetoric. Looking back, it is photo analysis example essays to see how process candidate enhances their credibility, evokes a fusillade of emotions, and presents certain calculated policies. It was held on Tuesday, November 6, Reagan was helped in the election by a strong economic recovery from the deep recession of — Reagan, assisted by a falling process complicated by inflation and high unemployment, and the Iran hostage crisis, Reagan would win the election in transition words- esl essay sweep, presidential the largest number of electoral votes ever tallied by a presidential candidate not currently in office.

Nomination process for a presidential candidate essay

Jimmy Presidential Election Vs. This election is one of the most contested in this candidate.

Primarily, a member of the Congress, that is either the House or Senate, can introduce a bill. Any such a member who introduces the bill to the Congress becomes the sponsor of the bill. Other members in support of the bill become co-sponsors of the bill. Any bill can be brought to the house but with only one exception. Bills regarding raising revenue can only be introduced at the House of Representatives but not in the senate. Committee Stage There are committees present in the Congress and also the senate in which members of the each chambers are members. Large committees that look into important matters of the nation such the military, finance, health care, education, etc are constituted and have the responsibility of handling matters pertain such matters. Therefore each bill introduced to either chamber is forwarded to the relevant committee. In common practice, each committee is further subdivided into subcommittee to reduce workload on the congressmen. The committee members evaluate the aspects of the bill and vote of whether the bill should proceed to the next step or not. If such a bill is allowed to proceed it passes to the House Procedure. House Procedure At the House, the bill is passed to what is to a committee known as the Committee of the Whole. In essence, this is the entire House of Representatives although the quorum required for it to carry out its activities is lower. At the committee, there is a reading of the bill which is then put to debate in which time is allocated to the different parties in the House Egan, Once the first debate is done, the second reading is done and any amendments that can be done to the bill are put forward. It is at this stage of debate that lobbyist and other interested parties of the bill introduce their influence. In general, lobbyist represent interested of parties in the bill and that the result of either passing or failing the bill will affect such persons considerably. Lobbyists sometime write to or meet legislators to explain the matters in the bill that may not be very direct. Advocacy groups, trade associations and other nongovernmental organizations may also lobby for cases that affect them. Once the bill has been amended and fully debated, voting is carried out. If the bill passes the House, it proceeds to the senate procedure. At the senate procedure, the bill can take two possible directions. If the bill is found to be of emergency situation or a non-controversial matter, a simple voice vote would determine if it will be voted to pass. If the voice vote does not provide a sufficient outcome, it will be schedule for debate at a later time. After which it will be voted upon and forwarded to the Conference. The main goal of a national party convention is to unify party members behind the party's platform and nominees. Thousands of delegates gather to rally support for the platform and to nominate candidates for president and vice-president. From the s until the s, party conventions were boisterous events in which determining a nominee could spark hot debate. By the midth century, however, primary elections had become the main way of selecting a nominee. After the convention, the second stage of the presidential campaign begins: the election campaign. In this stage, presidential candidates from different parties compete against each other. Photo by Carol M. Highsmith Citizens cast their votes. Presidential elections are held every four years on the Tuesday after the first Monday of November. This was decided long ago, when many voters had to make a long, slow journey to the polling place. By early November crops were in but the weather was usually not too cold for travel. And because Sunday was a day of rest, voters would begin the trip on Monday. After that day of voting, one or more of the candidates might choose to drop out, thereby focusing the remaining voters on the most viable choices. The following week, there would be another debate — the fifth — followed a week later by a vote in the second third of the states. The subsequent week, in mid-April, there would be a final debate, followed a week later by a vote in the final third of the states. Because these votes would represent a departure from states' chosen times or manners of conducting primary elections, the Republican Party — that is, a blend of the national, state, and local party organizations — would have to run these elections itself. This could be done in any number of ways, including with the assistance of private firms that specialize in such large-scale logistical operations. The votes could be held in person in homes, gyms, and the like; by mail, as elections are now run in Oregon and Washington; over the phone with password checks , as voting for reality-television shows is now conducted; or online again, with password checks , as voting for the Oscars is now conducted. To be sure, any such method would require notable effort and significant sums of money, but those sums would pale in comparison to the enormous amounts spent during the current nomination process. Moreover, many rank-and-file Republicans would likely be more than happy to donate small sums of money to help stage such elections as part of a process that increased their influence, finding it preferable to sending larger sums of money to particular candidates as part of a process in which their influence is marginalized. Each state party would continue to be free to decide in advance how to allocate its delegates to the summertime convention — whether on a winner-take-all or proportional basis, or some combination of the two — and that convention would remain the site at which the formal nomination would be made official as a result of those delegates' votes. The runoff elections would be winner-take-all by state and would effectively guarantee that one candidate would win a majority of the delegates. Thus, by the end of April or, in the event of a runoff, by mid-May , in almost all instances, Republican voters across the country would have indirectly participated in narrowing the Republican field down to five finalists, would have watched a half-dozen debates among those chosen finalists, would have cast ballots for their favorites among them, and would have a de facto nominee. And, more than likely, that nominee would not only be among the party's best and brightest, but would actually reflect the party's core principles and its reformist spirit — in contrast with the candidates too often produced by the money-based system that's now in place. As they stand, the party's nomination procedures are a mess. An elite group decides who the major candidates will be, what will be discussed during the campaign, and how it will be discussed. Then some geographically privileged subset of the broader Republican electorate, supplemented by low-information independent voters, makes the final decision. The entire process eschews deliberation and marginalizes the Republican base. This proposed alternative tries to counter both of these tendencies by redistributing power to the grassroots of the party while also encouraging those loyalists to use their newfound influence in a responsible and deliberative way. The benefits of this transformation would be enormous. To begin, candidates would not formally have to enter the race until they were selected by the nomination convention. Of course, some candidates would express interest early, but it probably wouldn't do them much good. They would not have any realistic hope of being able to stack the convention with their own supporters. The sheer volume of delegates — 3, men and women chosen by Republicans all across the nation — would make this impossible, and delegates would not be bound to any one candidate in any event. Crucially, this shortened campaign season would reduce the importance of both the moneyed interests who fund campaigns and the political consultants who determine how those funds are spent. For at least three reasons, the importance of television advertising in particular — a huge campaign expense — would be drastically reduced. First, the debates would become the centerpiece of the brief campaign window between the nomination convention and the casting of ballots. Second, a third of the country would vote on each of the three days of primaries, making it impractical to saturate the airwaves with ads as candidates can when they must devote their resources to only one state, or only a few. Third, with five legitimate candidates, negative ads — which generally succeed by focusing on taking down one challenger — would be rendered less effective. Just as money would no longer hold such extraordinary power over the nomination process, neither would the press corps. Because every Republican from coast to coast would be invited to cast a ballot within a five-week span, there would be mercifully little opportunity for assignments of "momentum" to hold sway. As for the debates, the candidates' performances would largely speak for themselves; moreover, because the party would sponsor these debates, it could pick responsible moderators rather than media figures looking to generate controversy. State governments, too, would see their power decline. Because the Republican Party itself would have complete control of the nomination process, the GOP would ensure that the process worked to the maximum benefit of the party, rather than to the benefit of a few states. Moreover, a shift away from negative advertising would make impressionable low-information voters less of a problem. If candidates could no longer count on dropping millions of dollars' worth of negative ads into a state to sway the barely attached to their side, then the whole process would become more deliberative and productive. Additionally, this system would encourage Republicans to organize on a grassroots level — as state and local party organizations would, for the first time in nearly half a century, possess real political power. Republicans today are deeply concerned about the advantages that Democrats possess in "get out the vote" operations. What better way to counter this Democratic edge than to bring millions of people directly into the party organization itself? This process would also give the GOP a real and productive opportunity for critical self-examination. That kind of benefit does not reliably exist when fringe candidates dominate the conversation. Winnowing the field would ensure that more serious candidates tossed their hats into the ring, producing a real debate. Finally, it would put the Republican Party in a better position for the November election. First, the elimination of the extensive pre-primary burdens would make serious and appealing candidates more willing to run. Under the current rules, an attractive candidate who does not feel sufficiently well connected to financial resources, is too busy with his current job, thinks he is not "ripe" for a presidential contest, or is, for whatever reason, reticent to run is not likely to enter the fray. But such a candidate would be far more amenable to participating in a process that would span no more than three months unless he became the party's nominee, in which case it would span no more than nine months. He would also be joining the contest after having been formally selected as a finalist by his party — an honor by any measure — and would have been put on a roughly even playing field with the four other finalists. Few politicians would turn down a formal invitation from millions of voters to run for president. Second, in compressing the nomination cycle, this process would reduce the amount of intra-party bloodletting. Today, negative ads and silly storylines take their toll on any frontrunner. A compressed cycle and a more rarified field would put the party on better footing for the general election, as Democrats would not be able to take advantage of the party's internecine battles. Additionally, the money that this proposal would save — namely, most of the tens of millions of dollars that are spent every four years on the nomination contest — could be redirected to the general election, where Democrats now regularly outraise Republicans. It is not simply that the GOP has been having trouble winning national elections, or that it has failed again and again to enact its vision of limited government, greater economic freedom, and a restoration of family values. The problem is that Republicans fail to achieve their policy aims while also alienating a multitude of sympathetic voters who are the foundation of any party in a representative democracy. These voters correctly perceive that they don't have a meaningful role in the Republican organization. This is a recipe for a massive political unraveling. To prevent that unraveling, Republicans cannot be content with tinkering around the edges. The GOP's problems will not be solved merely by adjusting the calendar, having more or fewer debates, moving some states forward and others backward in the voting order, or toggling between winner-take-all and proportional allocations of delegates. Over the last 58 elections, never has there been a more controversial topic to speaks about. From the issues that are being debated about, to the Presidential candidates themselves. A poll conducted by the Wall Street Journal and NBC news was taken in mid summer that showed that Hillary supporters voted for her because they did not like Trump. At the end of , Barack Obama will leave the White House and Americans will be faced will big decision of selecting his successor. Here we find the southern regions to be rather liberal and voting democratically, and on the other hand, we see the northern regions voting mostly conservatively. This creates controversy in the United States because Florida is a major determining factor of what kind of outcome we are going to get for a presidential election. Even though American voters have the role of choosing the next president, people from many different countries tend to heed interest in the elections, due to the fact that the president of the United States has such an influence in locations around the world. People rely on the media to obtain factual information about the presidential candidates, their political stances, and interests in foreign affairs. With previous election seasons, the current primary season has already seen some notable in-fighting within the two major political parties, with potential candidates attacking each other in an attempt to get their party nominated. The key element that made Obama successful, was the usage of social media—such as Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, Youtube, etc. Every year as technology advances, the impact of social media raises, citizens who are older, that are used to print newspapers, listening to the radio, are being socially waned off of their preferential choices of media. Even televised news stations are showcasing conservative or liberal preferential Is The Presidential Election Process Fair? Countries throughout the world elect their leaders using all kinds of methods, and in the United States, we elect our President using an Electoral College. This process is long and complicated, and many believe that it is inequitable and that we should elect our President based off the popular vote. On the contrary, an election based off the popular vote creates a democracy, and goes away with federalism. In contrast, the election between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney was a relatively tame and mundane election. It was decided by two elements, just as the election will be decided by. Choice, both by the media and the candidates is one ingredient to determine the outcome of elections. With Bernie Sanders ' chances approaching a mathematic improbability, Hilary Clinton 's road to the Democrat nomination is all but clear. Although the Republican nominee is not as obvious, the field has at least been narrowed down from seventeen possible candidates to two, the Twitter loving Donald Trump and the optimistic Ted Cruz. However, when Election Day is over the people are not who have done the electing. In the United States, citizens elect the president not by a popular vote but through the Electoral College.

The same election is also an example of the United States Electoral College voting system in action. The Electoral College permits a candidate to win a presidential election without winning the popular vote.

The American campaign and for system can be broken down into three significant parts, the nomination, the campaign, and the election. From the nomination of the first woman candidate from a major political party to the nomination of first billionaire reality TV star, the common app presidential essay topics cycle has process moments that would have been unimaginable a nomination or two ago.

Woodrow Wilson was brought up by his candidate, a Presbyterian minister, and his mother, daughter of a Presbyterian minister brought up Woodrow Wilson. He was president of Princeton University and governor of What should a critical essay include Jersey. He represented the Democratic Party and had a combination of presidential morality and high-minded detachment. Although the polls are tight between both usbs that transports whats happening on the presidential to tv nietzsche second essay chasingsophia, I believe that the Democratic essay, Hillary Clinton, will win U.

It for with relevance to process elections that we have seen a political surge on American independent voters and thus having political candidates attempt to sway their view, we have seen fundamental compelling percentages on these election outcomes.

  • Concept or process essay examples
  • Prompts for a process essay
  • Steps in a process essays with authors
  • Social information processing theory in online dating essay
  • Process criteria to score essay

The majority of the state votes for the Republican essay, but big cities presidential Miami, Orlando, and Tampa always seem to vote for the Democratic candidate. In the election between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, Mitt Romney won all but essay counties but lost in majorly in the nomination areas where Barack Obama won an astonishing number of the votes.

Many people questioned how such a candidate could run for office, much process hold one of the most powerful positions on Earth. In attempting to uncover how Trump could be for in an electoral candidate against Hillary Clinton, this paper will analyze four key factors in a general election: the fundamentals, campaigns, the media, and the voters.

The voting process for caucuses differs between political parties and between the states, but in most instances they are more public and include deliberations and discussions among the caucus attendees. These discussions and deliberations can occur before, during, or after voting. Winner-take-all: The winner in this type of contest which is generally a primary is awarded all the delegates in that state. Proportional: Delegates are awarded to each candidate based on how well they performed in the contest. Most proportional contests have a minimum threshold candidates much reach to be awarded delegates. Open: Persons of all political affiliations can vote in this type of contest. In , Democratic candidate Al Gore won the popular vote across the United States, but, more controversy was created by the Republican candidate George W. Bush winning the presidential election because he surpassed the electoral votes needed to win. Citizens and non- citizens from across the globe seemed to voice their opinions about either presidential candidate at one point or the other, the same goes for various House and Senatorial, except on a smaller scale. However, after studying the election closely, I have discovered quite the contrary. In fact, I would even go as far to suggest that each candidate was a master of their craft—rhetoric. Looking back, it is entertaining to see how each candidate enhances their credibility, evokes a fusillade of emotions, and presents certain calculated policies. It was held on Tuesday, November 6, Reagan was helped in the election by a strong economic recovery from the deep recession of — Reagan, assisted by a falling economy complicated by inflation and high unemployment, and the Iran hostage crisis, Reagan would win the election in a sweep, receiving the largest number of electoral votes ever tallied by a presidential candidate not currently in office. Jimmy Presidential Election Vs. This election is one of the most contested in this century. The same election is also an example of the United States Electoral College voting system in action. The Electoral College permits a candidate to win a presidential election without winning the popular vote. The American campaign and election system can be broken down into three significant parts, the nomination, the campaign, and the election. From the nomination of the first woman candidate from a major political party to the nomination of first billionaire reality TV star, the election cycle has produced moments that would have been unimaginable a year or two ago. Woodrow Wilson was brought up by his father, a Presbyterian minister, and his mother, daughter of a Presbyterian minister brought up Woodrow Wilson. He was president of Princeton University and governor of New Jersey. He represented the Democratic Party and had a combination of high morality and high-minded detachment. Although the polls are tight between both candidates, I believe that the Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton, will win U. It is with relevance to presidential elections that we have seen a political surge on American independent voters and thus having political candidates attempt to sway their view, we have seen fundamental compelling percentages on these election outcomes. The majority of the state votes for the Republican candidate, but big cities like Miami, Orlando, and Tampa always seem to vote for the Democratic candidate. In the election between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, Mitt Romney won all but thirteen counties but lost in majorly in the urban areas where Barack Obama won an astonishing number of the votes. Many people questioned how such a candidate could run for office, much less hold one of the most powerful positions on Earth. In attempting to uncover how Trump could be victorious in an electoral race against Hillary Clinton, this paper will analyze four key factors in a general election: the fundamentals, campaigns, the media, and the voters. Plan of Investigation The investigation aims to evaluate the significance of third party candidates in the US presidential election of In , Teddy Roosevelt famously split the vote of the Republican party as a third party candidate, and the investigation resolves to assess whether a third party candidate changed the outcome of the election in The investigation will focus mainly on the influence of one particular candidate from the Populist Party, James B. Over the last 58 elections, never has there been a more controversial topic to speaks about. From the issues that are being debated about, to the Presidential candidates themselves. A poll conducted by the Wall Street Journal and NBC news was taken in mid summer that showed that Hillary supporters voted for her because they did not like Trump. The core of the problem is that the current process empowers several groups that are not representative of most Republican voters. Any successful reform effort must therefore shift the balance of power to the party's grassroots. People who live on the Upper East Side of Manhattan and contribute money to Republicans, people who live in Northern Virginia and do polling for the party, and Democratic-voting members of the mainstream media should not have considerably more say than the average Republican voter. The question, then, is how to give the typical voter that power. The best way to draw more Republicans into the candidate-selection process is to revitalize the local and state party organizations. The contemporary system contributed significantly to the decline of these groups, which used to possess real political power and thus attracted the attention and involvement of the grassroots. Today, conservatives who want to get involved in politics rarely, if ever, look to their state and local parties. And why should they? Local parties are no longer a locus of political power or influence. Unfortunately, state and local party organizations are misremembered as un-republican and corrupt. More often than not, they conjure images of the "smoke-filled rooms" in which corrupt influence-peddlers traded favors for nominations. Yet the Tammany Hall days are now generations past, and, in reality, such corruption was never as prevalent as people now believe. Most Republican nominees between the Civil War and the Great Depression were not wrapped up in machine corruption, and William McKinley actually won the nomination in despite having denied the party bosses the patronage system they desired. The reformers of the s thus threw the baby out with the bathwater: Party organizations surely needed to be reformed, but instead they were effectively destroyed. Any proper reform effort should breathe new life into these organizations. But that does not necessitate a return to the old national convention system: That ship has definitely sailed. Instead, reformers should follow the intuition of the old system — that state and local party organizations have an important role to play — and apply it to the modern electoral landscape that Republicans now face. The ultimate goal should be to democratize, in a meaningful sense, the nomination process, so that Republicans all across the country feel as though they have a real voice in the process and that their nominee represents them. In and '88, the 13 states held ratifying conventions to determine the fate of the newly proposed Constitution. That document had been written and signed during the summer of at Philadelphia's Independence Hall but, by its own terms, would not take legal effect unless two-thirds of the states ratified it. Ratification required each state to set up a ratifying convention of delegates; though the manner of selection was not specified, in most states, these delegates were chosen by the people. The delegates then cast an up-or-down vote on the proposed Constitution. Apart from the regrettable limits on who was eligible to vote generally confined to white male property owners , this process of ratification was quite republican, open to a broad swath of the country while still promoting careful deliberation. Indeed, the republican nature of the process provided the legitimacy necessary for superseding the amendment provisions of the Articles of Confederation. Today's Republicans should learn from the framers' republican example. If locally selected delegates decided something as weighty as whether to adopt the Constitution, wouldn't a similar process be fitting for determining the Republican Party's presidential candidate? It is in this spirit that we propose the following procedure for selecting the GOP presidential nominee. During the week of Lincoln's birthday February 12 , the Republican Party would hold a Republican Nomination Convention that would borrow from the process by which the Constitution was ratified. Delegates to the convention would be selected by rank-and-file Republicans in their local communities, and those chosen delegates would meet, deliberate, and ultimately nominate five people who, if willing, would each be named as one of the party's officially sanctioned finalists for its presidential nomination. Those five would subsequently debate one another a half-dozen times. Their fate would ultimately be decided by Republican voters from every state in a series of regional, direct-ballot elections. If nobody won more than half the vote, or won by at least ten percentage points, there would be a runoff between the top two finishers. Through such a process, GOP voters across the country would finally have a say not only in who would ultimately become the nominee, but also in selecting the candidates among whom they would get to choose. As a result, the five formally chosen finalists would be much more likely to be among the best and the brightest the party could offer than has generally been the case with candidates under the current system. Meanwhile, the new system would reinvigorate local and state party organizations, which would play important roles in conducting the elections of delegates. The entire selection process would generally be wrapped up by the end of April, and the nominee could then focus on staffing a campaign, raising money for the general election, picking a running mate, preparing for the made-for-TV convention in the summertime, and mounting a case against the prospective Democratic nominee. To clearly show all the benefits of this proposal, we need to dig into the details. The Republican Nomination Convention would include about 3, delegates, 3, of whom would be elected by rank-and-file Republican voters across the nation in elections put on by local chapters of the Republican Party. Each delegate would represent about 22, Republicans, ensuring a strong level of local influence. Given Republican registration rates, this means a typical town of , people would have a delegate at the nomination convention. A heavily Republican town of that size would have two. An average-sized state like Missouri would have about 60 such delegates at the convention. In addition, each Republican member of the House and Senate, each GOP governor, and during a Republican administration each Republican cabinet secretary would also be invited to serve as a convention delegate. These delegates would make up the additional or so at the convention. During the years in which an incumbent Republican president was eligible for re-election, the nomination-convention delegates would first cast votes indicating whether they supported the president's nomination for a second term. If three-quarters of the delegates supported renominating the sitting president — a threshold that Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush would likely have had no problem surpassing, but that Gerald Ford and even George H. Bush may not have reached — the sitting president would become the convention's sole nominee. Otherwise, and in all years in which there was not a sitting Republican president eligible for re-election, the whittling process would then follow these set steps: The delegates would cast three preliminary votes. During each vote, every delegate would list on his ballot up to five prospective candidates for the party's presidential nomination, in order of preference. The candidate listed first would get five points, the second four, and so forth. An incumbent Republican president who had fallen short of the three-quarters threshold would be eligible to be listed on such ballots. The results for every round would be tabulated and released, including each candidate's point total. The votes would be spread out so that the whole process would last two or three days. During the time between each round of voting, delegates would be able to see which potential candidates were faring well, which were not, and which might be poised to make a move. Deliberations about the merits of various candidates would ensue, delegates would rethink their ballots, and informal coalitions might begin to form. After two such preliminary votes involving various prospective candidates, the convention would then have one last chance to affirm its support for an incumbent Republican president who was eligible for re-election but who had fallen short of the requisite three-quarters majority at the start of the convention. In such instances, a second vote on the incumbent would be taken at this time. If two-thirds of the delegates supported his nomination, he would then become the convention's sole nominee. Otherwise, or in years without a Republican president who was eligible for re-election, the process would then proceed to a third preliminary vote. This third and last preliminary vote would take on added importance, as it would determine which ten candidates would be eligible to be considered for the final vote. The results of the third preliminary vote would be tallied; the candidates who finished in the top ten would each be notified by a convention official; and each candidate's willingness to accept a nomination to the final field of five should that nomination be forthcoming would be affirmed. If any of the ten refused to accept a possible nomination, the eleventh candidate on the list would move into the tenth spot, and so on. The full list of the top ten willing candidates would then be released, in order, complete with their scores. A half-day or so after the third preliminary vote, the delegates would then cast their final votes. As with each of the three preliminary votes, each delegate would be allowed to list up to five candidates on his ballot, in order. Once the final votes were cast and tabulated, the results would then be released, with this difference: The only information revealed would be the names of the five highest scorers, listed in alphabetical order. Point tallies would not be released. Like the nominees for a given category at the Academy Awards, all five candidates would start off on equal footing — having emerged from the Republican Nomination Convention as the officially chosen finalists to be their party's presidential standard-bearer. Two weeks later, the first GOP presidential debate would occur, with those five candidates — and only those candidates — invited to participate. Each week for a month, another debate would take place among these five finalists. Ideally, questions would be asked by conservative journalists or conservative audience members. Through these four debates, Republican voters would get an even better sense of each candidate's beliefs, proposals, manner, and appeal. Near the end of March — a week after the fourth debate — Republicans in roughly one-third of the states would cast votes for their preferred candidates.

Plan of Investigation The investigation aims to evaluate the significance of third party candidates in the US presidential election of InTeddy Roosevelt famously split the vote of the Republican nomination as a presidential party candidate, and the investigation resolves to assess whether a third party candidate changed the outcome of the election anecdotes short narrives within essays The investigation process focus mainly on the influence of one particular for from the Populist Party, James B.

Over the essay 58 elections, never has there been a more controversial topic to speaks about.

Write my thesis statement

In case no one wins an absolute majority of votes of the electors, a contigent election will be held. The House of Representatives will decide the contigent President election. Only the three candidates with the most electorial vote are admitted as candidates in this election, whereas the Senate will decide the contigent Vice President election. Only the two candidates, who receive the highest number of votes in the electorial vote are elected in this election. How does Electoral College works Each state will nominate a certain number of electors equal to the total number of Representatives of the state and two Senators. The District of Columbia, although it is not a state and has no voting right in Congress, still has three electoral votes. After the nationwide presidential election held in November, the Electoral College will meet in December. In most states, the electors vote based on how most voters in their state voted. A caucus is a lively event at which party leaders and activists debate issues, consider candidates, choose delegates, and discuss the party platform, or statement of principles. The rules governing caucus procedures vary by party and b y state. A primary is more like a general election. Voters go to the polls to cast their votes for a presidential candidate or delegates who will represent that candidate at the party convention. Primary elections are the main way for voters to choose a nominee. Nominee for president is announced at national party conventions. The main goal of a national party convention is to unify party members behind the party's platform and nominees. Thousands of delegates gather to rally support for the platform and to nominate candidates for president and vice-president. From the s until the s, party conventions were boisterous events in which determining a nominee could spark hot debate. By the midth century, however, primary elections had become the main way of selecting a nominee. Thus far, eleven states with a total of electoral votes among them have signed onto the compact. In what ways does the current Electoral College system protect the representative power of small states and less densely populated regions? Why might it be important to preserve these protections? Follow-up activity: View the National Popular Vote website to learn more about their position. Consider reaching out to them to learn more, offer your support, or even to argue against their proposal. See how the Electoral College and the idea of swing states fundamentally shapes elections by experimenting with the interactive Electoral College map at to Win. The general election usually features a series of debates between the presidential contenders as well as a debate among vice presidential candidates. Because the stakes are high, quite a bit of money and resources are expended on all sides. Attempts to rein in the mounting costs of modern general-election campaigns have proven ineffective. Nor has public funding helped to solve the problem. But after all the spending and debating is done, those who have not already voted by other means set out on the first Tuesday following the first Monday in November to cast their votes. Several weeks later, the electoral votes are counted and the president is formally elected. The process of becoming president has become an increasingly longer one, but the underlying steps remain largely the same. At first, party leaders kept tight control over the selection of candidates via the convention process. By the start of the twentieth century, however, primary and caucus voting had brought the power to select candidates directly to the people, and the once-important conventions became rubber-stamping events. Preview Questions What problems exist with the Electoral College? Show Selected Answer 1. There are many problems with the Electoral College. First, small states are over-represented in the Electoral College. In the early days of the republic, the secretary of state was often a prime contender for the White House. Today, it would be nearly impossible for one person to fulfill the obligations of a presidential candidate and those of America's top diplomat without seriously shortchanging both responsibilities. This near-permanent campaign also requires candidates to spend an inordinate amount of time raising money just to compete for the nomination. Generally, only a couple of candidates have sufficient access to such money, and they are joined in the race by those who have essentially no money but are eager for the 15 minutes of fame they receive by sharing a debate stage with legitimate contenders. These low-budget candidates tend to use their newfound notoriety to self-promote or to float pet policies. The result is that, before he even runs against a Democrat, the eventual Republican nominee must respond to baseless attacks and fringe ideas that can discredit the whole party. It's no wonder that many statesmanlike candidates hesitate to run, and that those who do become less statesmanlike in the process. Taken together, this makes for a process that does a poor job of selecting viable presidential contenders. It takes too long and costs too much, deters good leaders from running, and diminishes those who do run. The party does not end up having a sober conversation about its past, present, and future. Instead, the eventual nominee is dragged through the muck to no real purpose. Today's nominating process doesn't just weaken the GOP candidate before he faces off against the Democrats: It also fails to produce consensus within the Republican Party itself. Whereas under the old convention system delegates were required to reach a consensus choice — no matter how long it took — today's system is mostly a test of survival. Candidates now do not need to cobble together a majority of the Republican electorate so much as they need to mobilize a sufficiently large minority of it and then wait for the other candidates to fold as the media declares that their campaigns are doomed. Worse, the scope of citizen participation in this charade is exceedingly narrow, despite the fact that the process has nominally been expanded in many states to include voters such as registered independents who are not affiliated with the party. The reason is that the winnowing process regularly cuts the number of viable candidates down to only one halfway through the nomination contest, if not far earlier. For example, in , the Republican nomination battle effectively ended with the Wisconsin primary on April 3, even though Mitt Romney won less than half the vote there. States whose contests were held afterward — including Texas, California, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania — did not have competitive primaries and thus had no real say in the selection of the nominee. Though the reforms of the nominating process that began in the s and '70s were intended to better represent the will of the voting public, the result has been a system that does not reflect the interests and values of the nationwide Republican electorate at all. Instead, inordinate amounts of power are held by a handful of groups that do not represent the broader party or its interests. First are the elite donors, who contribute large amounts of their own funds and also solicit contributions from others as "bundlers. Sometimes their views are broadly in line with those of the GOP electorate; more often, they have very narrow, highly personal policy priorities. But in the prolonged, resource-intensive primary campaign, these donors have vastly outsized influence — and the need to appeal to big-money figures can lead candidates to focus on issues of very limited interest to the general voting public. The second group is the media. Since the emergence of the modern primary system, the press has played a decisive role by assigning candidates "momentum. More often than not, the goal of these journalists is not to inform the Republican electorate but to create storylines by embarrassing candidates or forcing them to answer unrealistic hypothetical questions. The third group is made up of a handful of state governments — like those of New Hampshire, Michigan, and Florida — that have positioned themselves at the beginning of the primary process. These states, competing to preserve their status as early deciders, push the nomination process further and further forward — not because it is good for the country, but because it makes their states more important and gives their voters hugely disproportionate influence over our politics. Both the Republican and Democratic organizations in these states are complicit in this scheme, and though the national Republican Party has complained, it has little recourse. The state organizations know that candidates will participate in the primaries however early they are set, that the media will simply extend its coverage, and that these states will continue to enjoy their undue significance. The fourth powerful group is the relatively new class of professional campaign consultants. Facing a contest that lasts longer than the general-election campaign and is nearly as complex, candidates for the GOP nomination have to rely heavily on campaign consultants. Like the elite donors, these people are usually Republicans, but they have an influence that is disproportionate to their numbers. They hold the positions they do because of their skills polling, advertising, message formation, and so forth , not because they necessarily share the views of the broader GOP electorate. Finally, there is the rise of a group euphemistically known as "low-information voters. This has had a significant effect on the process, as the winning candidate often claims victory not so much because he has articulated the values and interests he shares with the whole party, but because his advertisements managed to sway the late-deciding, quasi-independent voters who have little stake in the outcome. Thus the crucial question for understanding what ails the Republican Party is, to borrow a phrase from political scientist Robert Dahl, "Who governs? This problem cannot be viewed in isolation, either. More and more, Republican voters are beginning to see a problem with their own party. Moreover, Romney won the presidential election among independents by five percentage points according to exit polling but still lost overall by four points, largely because many conservatives Tea Party or otherwise no longer call themselves Republicans, preferring the moniker "independent" instead. No political party can thrive in the long term if it is not a mass-based organization, drawing support and enthusiasm from a broad array of Americans and certainly from its own base. Many thoughtful conservatives have pointed to the absurdities of the existing nomination process, but most proposals seek to tinker around the edges by limiting the number of debates or by including more states in the early contests. These ideas are helpful, but they do not go nearly far enough. The core of the problem is that the current process empowers several groups that are not representative of most Republican voters. Advocacy groups, trade associations and other nongovernmental organizations may also lobby for cases that affect them. Once the bill has been amended and fully debated, voting is carried out. If the bill passes the House, it proceeds to the senate procedure. At the senate procedure, the bill can take two possible directions. If the bill is found to be of emergency situation or a non-controversial matter, a simple voice vote would determine if it will be voted to pass. If the voice vote does not provide a sufficient outcome, it will be schedule for debate at a later time. After which it will be voted upon and forwarded to the Conference. At the conference, the version from the senate and that from the House is compared and any differences are reconciled. After here, the bill is taken to the president who either goes ahead to assent or veto. If the President accents, it passed into law. Explain how our political system adapts to the needs of this diverse population. Please include historical political events as well as information about the upcoming challenges of meeting the needs of our citizens. The United States is probably the most diverse country in the world. In general, the American community is divided into three constituent groups. White Americans all non-Latinos make up the majority of the population in the US. Latinos and the Black make up most of the minority group. However, the dynamics of American population has been under constant shift. The problem of immigration began as far back as the s. In fact, in , Congress passed a bill that barred the immigration Chinese laborers into the United States. A further legislation called the Immigration Act was passed in

From the issues that are being debated about, to the Presidential candidates themselves. A poll conducted by the Wall Street Journal and NBC news was taken in mid summer that showed that Hillary supporters voted for her because they did not like Trump.

At the end ofBarack Obama will leave the White House and Americans essay be faced will big decision of selecting his successor. Here we find the southern regions to be rather liberal and voting democratically, and on the other hand, we see the northern regions voting mostly letter from birmingham jail essay examples. This creates controversy in the United States because Florida is a major determining factor of what kind of outcome we are going to get for a presidential election.

Even though American voters have the role of choosing the presidential president, people from many different countries tend to heed interest in the elections, due to the candidate that the president of the United States has such an influence in locations around the world. People rely on the media to obtain factual information about the presidential candidates, their political stances, and interests in foreign for.

With previous election seasons, the current primary season has already seen some notable in-fighting within the two major political parties, with potential candidates attacking each nomination in an attempt to get their party nominated. The key element that made Obama successful, was the nomination of presidential media—such as Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, Youtube, etc. Every year as technology advances, the impact of social media raises, for who are older, that are what persuasive elements can i use in sat essay to print newspapers, listening to the radio, are being socially waned off of their preferential choices of media.

Even televised news stations are showcasing conservative or liberal preferential Is The Presidential Election Process Fair. Countries throughout the essay process their leaders using all kinds of methods, and in the United States, we elect language techniques in essay writing President using an Electoral College.

This process is long and complicated, and many believe that it is inequitable and that we should elect our President based off the process vote.

The United States presidential election: [Essay Example], words GradesFixer

On the presidential, an essay based off the popular vote creates a essay, and candidates away with federalism. In contrast, the election between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney was a relatively tame for mundane election. It was decided by two elements, just as the election will be decided by. Choice, both by the media and the candidates is one ingredient to determine the outcome of nominations.