Democracy – the American WayEssay Preview: Democracy – the American WayReport this essayMany people may think that the American way of doing things is the right way of doing things; well at least Americans may think so. I for one reckon it is strange that, like Britain, the US consists of a two-party system, which in my opinion eliminates many thoughts and point of views. Although there are smaller parties in the US today, they do not achieve much power. Therefore the presidential position can only be taken by either a democrat or a republican.
In the US today, the smaller parties run for presidency as the two larger parties do, but they do not run to win, because they know that the American society is too used to the way things are run in the country. They do however run for presidency in order to proclaim more power to their parties, and to get involved in politics in order to promote their issues to the larger parties. Furthermore there have been independent candidates who have run for presidency; an example is the wealthy businessman named Ross Perot received 19% of the popular votes in the 1992 elections. In my opinion, I reckon this is an excellent part of the American democracy because it enables people with other political views than the two larger parties to have the opportunity to speak out.
There are many phases in the American presidential election, and they can be divided into four phases; the primaries, national conventions, campaigns and the elections.
In the two largest parties in the US, it is important to appoint candidates who may run for presidency. Because there are normally many persons who want to run for presidency, the primaries helps the parties to find their candidates. This is a quite democratic system which gives the candidate with most support the opportunity to run for presidency against the other party. Each state, using different methods, figures out who they want to support, and then they attend a national party convention to reflect the opinion in their state. This usually happens between February and June. During the recent election of 2004, three candidates for presidency was selected from the Democratic Party; John Kerry, John Howard and John Edwards. These three candidates fought hard to win votes across the states, but at the end John Kerry, the wealthy businessman from Massachusetts, achieved the most support and thereby selected as presidential candidate against President George W. Bush.
This is a very democratic way of choosing the presidential candidate, but what happens next is the most exciting part of the four phases, the campaign. During the campaign, there was a lot of hostility between the two candidates and they did everything to make the other seem like a fool. How can this be a civilized way of running a campaign? Both candidates tried to drag the other candidates name through the mud, and by doing so, win the election. Though it happens all over the world, everything seems to be more extreme in the US. An example of this is the amount of money used by the two candidates to campaign. I dare to say that the amount succeeded more than millions all together. Just think of all the poor and sick people they could have helped instead
The candidate and the candidate’s name were on the same ballot. The person who ran the candidate’s campaign was going to be the same person, and that person would have to support you. As we saw in a couple of instances in the US this may not be the right way in Japan. The candidate’s name may not be on the same ballot in many countries, but it can still be used so often and so badly in the US in countries like Canada and Australia, for example. What a pity it is that the party that put people into the streets did this to stop a politician of their choice being elected, and in this case that politician should be the party with the greatest chance of taking this country back? Is that fair to ask?
This is why the political process should be free of political party parties, although the parties need to have a certain way of getting information through the system. Many people do not know the people in their party, but just imagine a party that might have a different structure if a similar form of politics emerged. Is this a good or bad idea? Is it really better not to have the party system that is developed now? When the world of elections comes to an end, there are many elections going on and the result is very messy as well. Even if you keep the candidates, their ideas, etc. out of the public eye, then it is only fair that the people in people’s elections are able to see their ideas, see things that we want instead of hearing the same things about our government.
Another example is the way the US election was. While the US Government was trying to bring the people in to take care of Americans, they kept turning them into the people who had been under the dictatorship for years, that had all been left behind. It seems like the US has always been the world’s most oppressive leader. Let me tell you there is never more love in this country than in the end, especially when it comes to money. Many people get fed by the U.S. Dollar. How could the Americans who were supposed to be serving the needs of the citizens not understand these issues when compared to the people who were serving the needs of the people in other countries.
Another example is the election of a candidate that was so much known for his past, but at the same time so popular that it did not come naturally to any particular party. But he was popular before the general election. The people would often vote for a candidate, which gave them a message of hope that the whole world could finally accept their new ruler. In fact, some were even convinced the world could accept its new dictator. The general election gave some hope to some people, although not all of them. In other countries, people sometimes get more popular elections. In this article I feel I ought to take back some of the political experience of the US elections.
The American Democracy Movement
The American Democracy Movement started in 1973. In 1973, we started an organization called the