Site Loader
Rock Street, San Francisco

Catie Riordan POLI 1010Final Exam 12/20/17According to the given electoral college data, Candidate B (Republican) would win the election even though Candidate A (Democrat) won the popular vote. The reason Candidate B would win over Candidate A  is because Candidate B had won 278 electoral college votes. According to the rules of the electoral college, a candidate must earn 270 votes out of the 538 electoral college votes to win an election. In many cases, the candidate that wins the popular vote does not win the electoral vote. The candidate must win the electoral vote in order to win,  even if the candidate has won the popular vote.  In the case in which no candidate receives 270 electoral votes, which is the majority of the 538 electoral votes, the House of Representatives votes to find the outcome of the election. Each state delegation is given one vote. A majority to win in a tiebreaker is 26 votes in the House of Representatives. According to the constitution, the House of Representatives votes for the President and then separately for the Vice-President. When the U.S first became a country the men would run for president. The man with the largest popular vote would become the President of the United States and the man with the second highest popular vote would become Vice-President. There is a significant chance that a few faithless electors can change an election. Faithless electors are United States electoral college members who do not vote for the candidate that they had pledged to vote for. These select people can change the outcome of an election because it is the electoral college that truly determines which candidate is elected. The popular vote does not determine the winners of elections but it does have an effect on how electoral college member vote. In many states, the electors are required to vote according to the popular vote. If the elector votes for the candidate against their party or pledged vote or obtains then it could alter an election dramatically. In the hypothetical outcome of the above election it is possible to win the election without winning the popular vote. Our current political system, the electoral college is how the citizens decide which candidate is elected president and the popular vote comes second. Each individual state receives a certain number of votes according to the number of members in its congressional delegation, two votes for the senators and an equal amount of electors to the number of members in the House of Representative numbers. These electorate votes do not necessarily coincide with the opinion of the people. This is how it is possible for the citizens of the united states to elect a candidate the president without the popular vote and solely the results from the Electoral College. The powers of the presidency have evolved over the 200 years of our nation just like our nation has evolved from revolutionary times.  The federal government has expanded over the last 200 years and the original delegates to the constitutional convention were afraid of unchecked power in the hands of one man, or the presidency.  They had run from a monarchy and were deathly afraid of an imperial presidency.  The Articles of Confederation called for no leadership position, which consequently left the country with a power vacuum.  The presidents over time found a balance between the power of the presidency.  The leaders of our early nation had to make the decision of either one person in charge or committee or chosen by Congress.  What they knew was that it had to fit into the structure of “checks and balances”.  The constitution left the jobs of the president intentionally vague because they did not know what the president’s role would need to be in the expanding country and government. Formal powers given to the president stated in Article II of the Constitution is that the President of the United States must be a US born citizen, 35 years old, and must live in the US for a minimum of 14 years.  In the last century, presidents have expanded the power of the office by claiming powers not specifically noted, or denied, in the constitution. The Executive Order is the presidential directives that help to expand the power of the presidency such as in our Current immigration debate. The amount of power the president has depends on the how much control they have over the Congress and the Judicial branch. If the President has a “Unified Government”, when the president has control over all or part of Congress/judicial branch, then it is quite a lot easier to pass his agenda through the wheels of government. If the president has a Divided Government or the opposition party/parties control over the other branches of government, a gridlock may occur and the government could come to a grinding halt. It is safe to say that the President should make an effort to work with Congress for the government to do its intended purpose.The process of in which a bill becomes a law is a complicated one. The first step in creating a law is when a bill is created. Any citizen can create a draft a bill, yet only a member of Congress can introduce or “sponsor” a bill.  The next step is that the bill is introduced to a committee where it is carefully examined and determine if the committee should act on a bill. If this committee does not act on the bill then it is “dead” and can not go any further.  The next step is that the bill may be referred to a subcommittee for studies or hearings. The previous step may be optional in select cases. The next step in the lawmaking process is marking up the bill. In this stage, the subcommittee meets to make changes and amendments. After the mark up is complete the bill recommends the bill to the full committee. If the subcommittee votes to not recommend the bill to the full committee, then the bill dies. In the chance that the subcommittee votes for the bill to continue to the full committee, the full committee votes to recommend it to either the House or the Senate. This step is called “ordering a bill reported.” The Senate or House debates the approval of amendments the bill is either passed or defeated by the vote. If the house or senate pass a bill, it is then given to other the other chamber and all the steps that were previously mentioned are repeated. For example, if a bill went through the Senate, then it must survive all of these same steps within the House. At this point, the bill has passed through both the house and senate and the bill is significantly altered from the first sponsored bill. It is because of the significant alterations to the bill that a conference committee is formed between the House and the Senate to come to an agreement on the alterations and amendments that were made. If the conference committee is not able to come to an agreement on the outline of the bill, then the bill dies. If the conference committee comes to an agreement then they must create a conference report that must be approved by both the Senate and the House. After both the Senate and the House have approved of the bill and agreed on its form then the bill is sent to the president. The president can do one of three things with a bill, sign the bill and it becomes a law, do nothing for 10 days, or veto the bill. If the president approves of the bill he will sign it into law. If the president does nothing for ten days while Congress is in session then the bill automatically becomes a law. If the president disapproves of a bill then he can veto the bill and it dies. The Congress has the ability to override a veto from the president. The process of a veto override is if both the Senate and the house pass the bill with a two-thirds majority. If a veto override occurs the bill will become a law. In the Supreme Court, there are nine justices serving lifetime appointments.  The justices are influenced by the president especially if they are appointed by that president.  Yet the federal justices are above politics or political influence. This is why justices have the right to judicial reviews, or the right for federal courts to review the laws passed by Congress.  Federal justices make their decisions in two different ways, the judicial restraint approach, and the Activist approach.  The judicial restraint approach is that justice should rule on the strict language and understanding of the constitution.  There have been originalist supreme court justices like Justice Scalia who believe that we must take the meaning of the original framers of the government and any other way of coming to a decision is subjective.  In the gay marriage supreme court case, they could use the activist approach because it is the only an issue of modern politics.  Activist Approach is when the general principles of law allow modern understanding of the constitution.  The architects of the constitution did not write it with the modern case of gay marriage in mind so the judicial ruling should not be made purely with their writings in mind.  Federal Justices review the policies of other branches of government.  The supreme court case Marbury v. Madison (1803), ruled that the Supreme Court could declare an act of Congress unconstitutional.  The federal courts have final authority over Congress and the ability to repeal any law deemed unconstitutional. Social Welfare Policies in the United States evolved from the New deal to the National Healthcare Law.  It is stated in the constitution that the national government had to “Promote the General welfare.”  In the 1930s there was a large push to create programs and policies meant to give general welfare to citizens who were devastated by the hardships of the Great Depression. Franklin D. Roosevelt adopted a number of emergency measures or programs to supply relief for the local governments during the depression.  Roosevelt created an economic security cabinet position. It was considered to be unconstitutional for a direct federal welfare program so they created an insurance program for unemployed and elderly as well as an assistance program for dependents  In present day US government, nearly half the government’s budget goes to welfare project. There are two different kinds of social welfare programs, those that benefit most or all citizens and those that only assist a small number of them. The difference between these two different social welfare programs is that in the large-scale social welfare programs there is no means test. A means test qualifies income and determines if a person is eligible for the social program they are applying for. The first type of social welfare program represents majoritarian politics or a policy in which almost everybody benefits and almost everybody pays. The second type of social welfare program represents the client politics or a policy in which one small group benefits and almost everybody pays.  

Post Author: admin


I'm Dora!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out