Question # 1
Ways in which the Supreme Court can influence the balance of power between the national government and the states in the federal system.
The Supreme Court is the tribunal in the country for all cases and controversies regarding the constitution and the laws of the state. The court guarantees equal justice to the American people under the constitution. The court performs the role of an interpreter and as the guardian of the constitution.
The state’s position to get involved in matters of central decision-making, this position has been revoked by Jurists who tend to argue that the court should not play umpire between federal and state governments, congress does not threaten any state power; however, it helps in protecting the nation. The Senate serves as an environment for the rules to preserve and express their interests.
The court has the unlimited financial capacity and is not generally an elected entity. Thus, the court has limited advantage, and it is best to leave and reserve whatever power the court has. The powers of the court should not, in any way, be affected by taking away some of the skills (Heineman et al. 45).
Question # 2
Circumstances that could make the United States change to a multiparty system.
The American people are tired of a system that seems constant with conflicts between the republicans and democrats. People say that the system is broken, and Washington does not represent the typical American’s interest.
These sentiments have left many citizens exasperated, and they want to change. They want a program that does not compel them to choose between two predetermined choices that do not reflect their individual values as people. The multiparty method is favored because it allows the participation of minor parties.
The American people love systems, which represent all the citizens. Such a system can only be found in a multiparty democracy. The American people may put pressure on the Senate, and the government as a whole to make amendments in the constitution that allows for a multiparty system.
Other people prefer the two-party form of democracy. For a while, a multiparty system gives voters many choices; it gives small fringe groups a chance to attain power because they can be highly cohesive. This can lead to small groups’ allowance with radical theology and ideas to gain control because the majority of the votes are divided among rational mainstream candidates. The two-party system has become dominant because it provides a disparity in the percentage of votes received by a third party, and the number of the legislative seats it gets as a result. The party with the most significant portion of the voters in a single district is awarded representation.
The two-party system gives preferential treatment to the pluralist’s winners. It does not provide any regard to the runner’s up when the percentage of votes is being translated to legislative seats (Heineman et al. 45).
Question # 3
The College of Electoral Members has been in existence for 200 years. Some individuals are critics, and they are opposed to the Electoral College system. Critics also sought to introduce changes that would abolish the college program. Other supporters are less vocal when compared to the critics, but they offer powerful arguments.
Those who object the college system argue and provide the following cons of the Electoral College system;
- The possibility exists of the election of a minority president- this is where there are three or even more presidential candidates such that the votes are distributed among the candidates resulting in a situation where the winning candidate did not have the majority of the ballots
- There exist the risks of citizens who have been dubbed “faithless” electors- this is people who make the promise of voting for a particular candidate but at the poles votes instead for another candidate.
- The Electoral College depresses voter turnover- all states are guaranteed a similar number of electoral votes. Regardless of the voter turnout, there are no incentives in the country that encourage voter turnout; thus, a minority of the citizens are left to decide on the electoral vote of the country.
iv. The Electoral College may fail to reflect the will of the nation. – distribution of the electoral votes seems to over-represent people from the rural areas the number of members currently determines the number of electors found in each state that it has in the house added to the name of the Senate.
The supporters of the Two-party system offer the following arguments;
- The two-party system provides, the cohesiveness of the country- this is by distributing popular support to the president to be elected.
- A two-party system improves the status of interests in the minority.
- The two-party system promoted the political stability of America.
- The two-party systems help maintain the federal system of representation and government (Heineman et al.45).
The two methods differ significantly in the way they operate, and when it comes to supporting each system gets from the citizens of America. The citizens are crying foul and need a change in the order of governance. Through this change, the people will be allowed to choose the leader who meets their expectations.
- Heineman A, Steven P, and Thomas R. American government. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2005. Print.