Is American democracy working?
Democracy refers to rule by the people to the people and for the people particularly as the government either indirectly or directly through elected representatives (Skocpol and Morris 12). The voters usually end up supporting whom they perceive to offer the best promises at the moment, regardless of the long-term consequences to the nation. Voting, in other words, is a contest based on short-term rewards rather than long-term vision.
U.S is a country made up of fifty states. It is known as the world's superpower. Being that it is made up of many states; each state has a difference in the way of handling political issues. This difference brings about the deviation in which the meaning of democracy is perceived. One cannot differentiate between a Christian, a Muslim, a Jew, Democrat, a Republican, a man or a woman, but all the citizens are working for the same goal. Still with all these deviations USA has maintained a working democratic rule since independence. It also boasts of being a distinct presidential democracy with a continued history of the constitution. It is opposed to other young countries like those in Africa where after presidential elections petitions about rigging of votes occur. The incumbent presidents who are to leave the seat go to the extent of inciting the supporters then war begins as they continue ruling.
USA being federal government, still does not allow some of the states to make decisions without consulting with the president who is the executive and overall leader (Delli 37). Therefore, the following points elaborate on why USA democracy isn't working.
Democracy cannot work: this is due to the argument from the Arrow's impossibility theorem that notes that democracy is not an individual thing but the majority. Therefore, once other is a competition between two or more candidates the voters will vote in favor of one person of their interest and leave the other. Also, when their preference between the two or more candidates remains equal then they don't participate in elections, and this hampers democracy (Jacob 32). Again if there is no dictator then the voters may go undivided meaning if the above criteria are not satisfied then democracy remains at its lowest.
Complex accountability: this scenario gives room for the elected leaders just to do wrong without the citizen's knowledge. If they fault and nobody from the public realizes then there is no way, light will be shed on the part that went wrong. They escape with the impunity done, and this leads to undermined democracy where people need to know what is being done by their leaders.
Tribalism: this makes those who are close to us to be very much obsessed by our numbers. After they are elected and are in the office, they don't care about who took them there. After they are given power, they may go ahead to pass legislation that doesn’t favor the minority and harms democracy as everybody has a right to be heard. Thus, the majority keeps on oppressing the minority without them being given chance to be heard.
The mob rule: unrestricted democracy means that the majority decides on behalf of the minority. It makes them powerless. With defined roles of state, this cuts most of the communication with the people who elected them in the office.
Entitlement and corruption: this is a situation where one doesn't want his or her belonging such as businesses to be interfered with. The citizens will not support the leaders if what they are doing compromises their sustainability. It may lead to people moving around the street with placards to show their levels of agitation.
Constitutional check in USA involves sharing of power between the several branches of a national government. It includes the legislative, executive and the judicial. The powers and operations of one branch can be affected by the other. Regarding the separation of powers, which USA believes that their constitution provides, still these branches hinder the freedom of the other since every step made is checked and evaluated. For legislative arm it makes laws and checks on the executive, can override presidential vetoes by two-thirds majority vote, can impeach the president the president and the senate here approves presidential appointments. All these can only be of benefit to the citizens if they are done rightly. For example if the president does his appointments without proper consultation, the chances are that those appointed will be rejected by the senate. Any bill that is not favoring them will be turned down and only pass those they perceive to be friendly. For those judges that are not in good terms with the senate he/she may be impeached if the allegations made against him or her are strongly supported. It may not give room for defense, and this hampers democracy and hence hinders development (Mann, Thomas and Ornstein 34).
For executive checking on pardoning by the judiciary, may not be agreed upon and this could take back the culprit to serving the sentence even if the ruling were well made. The judiciary interprets laws in a way they feel justified. The laws can be of detrimental if they are not well interpreted and this keeps the executive and legislative arms waiting before they verify the laws being used in reference to the power of judicial review.
Is the US electoral process fair or are changes needed?
This question needs to be looked into by addressing the comparisons to which the statement is based. It looks at the process of comparison to another, represents the popularity of the people, coverage of all the demographic areas of the nation and if there exists parity between religions, races, ages and classes of people. USA still doesn’t take into considerations of the above. It has been defeated to regulate the issue of campaign finance. Some super political action committees crop up and influence the politics using money, and they don’t address the actual issues affecting the common men. The election mode should change from the winner takes all system to approval system. The approval system will make citizens to choose wisely according to the values the see the candidate poses. For example if the opinion polls reveals that there is competition between only two famous candidates then the one with the highest percentage in commanding people will automatically be voted in. The Electoral College also discourages third-party or independent candidates as it only recognizes two party systems thereby demeaning the democracy of these people who may have interests in serving the nation fully. The body also allows for sidelining of other states that are believed not to be popular in the number of votes they give. A democratically state should give full participation to all the states without discrimination (Maisel 91). The delegates are not held responsible for their votes and technically can vote as per the wish of their states. In the electoral body there happens to be corruption and cheating as it is easy to corrupt few electors than the entire state of voters. Being that the voters are not also held responsible for their votes massive cheating can occur to favor one who was not to win.
The electoral body has also been defeated to push for voting day to be a national holiday and another favorable season apart from winter. The two effects voting pattern as during the election date many are in their workplaces and those in their home excuse them because of the season. The electoral system of USA is failing to the extent and needs to be revised and upgraded to make valuable changes take effect for a fair democracy to be felt (Maisel 95).
Is the impact of the media and interest groups mostly positive or negative?
The interest groups however much they involve themselves in the elections they only want to influence policies that favor them positively. These groups are not limited on the amount of money they should give as support, for this reason they take advantage and from super political committees that provides funds which are used by them to influence the citizens to vote them .For example Obama’s race for presidency in 2008 to 2009 and Bush’s bid for presidency in 2000 institutional and business groups endorsed them as candidates for presidency interest groups funded their campaigns and that candidate who had most of the campaign funds was likely to win (Green 9). They are socially and politically divisive in that they are concerned of a particular and not the general and advanced in minority interest against the majority. Interest groups can also be engaged in disorganizing the electorates due to allegations they broadcast in the radio and ads with strong financial backbone; hence they can get more support from people. The media also influence the citizens negatively by focusing mostly on the two party state systems. It doesn’t favor the other parties in the competition for the elections. Also, the independent candidates are not well focused on since the Americans have the notion that it is made up of two parties only, and thus anybody not belonging to a party is not considered. The media being the government watchdog they can be instructed on what to air and what not. It is meant to prevent any information that is perceived to be bad from leaking out to the outside world.
Are government programs solving the problems they set out to fix?
Several government programs in USA have faced various problems as most of them run out of funds due to mismanagement. These programs include US postal services, social security, FANNIE MAE, war in poverty, war on drugs, media care, and the recent Obama health plan (Damp 65). The programs start of well but after the money allocated for it is over the program backslides without fulfilling most of their objectives.
In conclusion, the American democracy only works to an extent and is not 100 % perfect, but needs amendments on the areas that hinder its full functionality.
Work cited
Skocpol, Theda, and Morris P. Fiorina. Civic Engagement in American Democracy. Washington, D.C: Brookings Institution Press, 1999. Internet resource.
Mann, Thomas E, and Norman J. Ornstein. It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided with the New Politics of Extremism. New York: Basic Books, 2013. Internet resource.
Mayhew, David R. Partisan Balance: Why Political Parties Don't Kill the U.s. Constitutional System. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011. Print.
Maisel, L S. Parties and Elections in America: The Electoral Process. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Pub. Group, 2011. Internet resource.
Thompson, Dennis F. Just Elections: Creating a Fair Electoral Process in the United States. Chicago, Ill: University of Chicago Press, 2004. Print.
Green, Joseph M. Your Past and the Press!: Controversial Presidential Appointments : a Study Focusing on the Impact of Interest Groups and Media Activity on the Appointment Process. Dallas: University Press of America, 2004. Print.
Damp, Dennis V. The Book of U.s. Government Jobs: Where They Are, What's Available, & How to Get One. McKees Rocks, Pa: Bookhaven Press, 2007. Print.
