¶ … Function of the American Government The American government has had a long-standing checks-and-balances efficiency within its three-branch system. Because of the separate governable powers within the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the United States, American law has been approved after many constant revisions and discussions. It is extremely commendable that the legislative branch takes into account the representation of both "state" and "people." This is not to say, of course, that the government system of the United States is utterly perfect; the executive branch certainly holds a bit more power within the government than one would like.

One major positive effect of the passing of laws is the representation included within those laws. Long before the House-and-Senate solution of Congress, there was always the problem of representation amongst the population of the respective states. State borders vary in land mass and population; how does one reconcile a largely-populated state such as California with a small state like Rhode Island? There remains a huge difference between representations within the House of legislative government. In-so-doing, the creation of a divided Congress, between the House of Representatives and the Senate, came to being. The reason behind this is that "if two separate groups must both approve every proposed law, there would be little danger of Congress passing laws hurriedly or carelessly" (America.gov, 2008). The House represents a population representation of each state, from a minimal of one representative for the small states, and to as high as 52 for California. The Senate, on the other hand, represents the state, and has a total of two appointed representatives per each state. Both House and Senate have separate legislative powers, and one can veto the other until further compromise.

This is important to note, especially with how the government passes laws within the three branches. The legislative branch has, perhaps the best balance of governmental power. And even within their jurisdictions, the branch does not exceed its powers, considering the judicial and executive branches are also at play. In some way, the bills written by the legislative branch still need to be reviewed by the executive administration, and must be judicially reviewed by the judicial branch. The Supreme Court is checked by the Senate, and the Senate is checked by the House (America.gov, 2008).

It is perhaps in the executive branch that the power is a little skewed. While the presidency itself has to answer for its past administration and the policies passed by its predecessors, there is too much responsibility and too much power given within the post of President of the United States. For example, the President has the ability to veto bills out of discretion (LexisNexis, 1996), assign regulations unchecked by Congress, and propose legislation deemed necessary (America.gov, 2008). This is enough to question how much these actions are profitable to the current administration over the degree of assistance or aid it gives to the general population of the country. Furthermore, the additional responsibilities seem to delay the proper actions of the presidency; Obama's health reform bill is a prime example of the president's use of executive power and his fight against a slow-moving bureaucratic administration (PBS, 2010).

Overall, the American government's system holds a fair amount of representation for the citizens of the United States. While the constant checking and rechecking of actions within the three branches tend to slow the administering of laws and acts, this is not without reason. After all, an overly-checked and overly-discussed bill would mean that each branch has had a proper say in the matter, and thus has come to a compromise.

References

America.gov (2008). United States. "The Executive Branch." Outline of the U.S. Government. Web. Retrieved 23 April 2011. .

America.gov (2008). United States. "The Judicial Branch." Outline of U.S. Government. Web. Retrieved 23 April 2011. .

America.gov (2008). United States. "The Legislative Branch." Outline of U.S. Government. Web. Retrieved 23 April 2011. .

LexisNexis (1996). "How a Bill Becomes Law." LexisNexis. Web. Retrieved 23 Apr 2011. .

PBS (2010). "Obama Launches His Health Reform Drive." Frontline: n. pag. Web. Retrieved 23 Apr 2011. .

Essay 2: American Elections and the Electoral College

Democratic elections happen every few years, and when they do, the nature of the voting ballots and the introduction of the Electoral...

This is because while the population is, indeed, able to vote for his or her designated presidential candidate, there is still the matter of problems regarding the said "popularity vote." Thus the Electoral College comes into effect, to assuage the apparent "closeness" of the votes.
There are two types of elections: primary and general (America.gov, 2008), wherein the primary elections are held before the general elections. For the most part, primary elections pave the way in determining the party candidates who will run in the general election. A recent example would be the last election in 2008, where the primary elections for the Democratic Party determined the candidate who would be ultimately running for president: the forerunners being Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama. Having won the primary elections for the Democratic ticket, Obama moved forward into the general, presidential elections. In some states, election ballots even include questions regarding certain public policies for voter approval or disapproval (America.gov, 2008). In the official presidential elections, the electoral votes ultimately determine the assignation of the next President of the United States.

So where does the Electoral College come in regarding the presidential elections? It is a misconception where Americans think that they directly vote for the president through the use of majority population. While this idea of popular votes is simple and straightforward, there comes to be a distinct problem with the prospect. For one, each candidate usually stands behind a particular platform as indicated by the party he or she joins. These platforms usually include highly-debated topics that differ from state to state. While popular votes are a good indication of the winning candidate, there is that problem of determining the closeness of the election and the "clear winner." There is also the disadvantage of a particular state's population, wherein the platforms become an important part of the voting process.

In order to scale the voting process to a more manageable method, the presidential elections are determined not through popular vote, but through the votes of the people passing through the Electoral College. These elected officials -- assigned to a particular state -- then typically vote for the candidates that won the majority vote in their respective states (CRS, 2003). In order to win the election, the absolute majority vote must come out of a total of 538 electors. While the officials in the Electoral College are not necessarily bound to vote for their states' majority vote winner, failure to do so usually labels them "faithless" or "unfaithful" (CRS, 2003). Problems do arise when the elected official on a particular state has his or her bias already settled on a candidate. Sometimes, conflicts of interest arise, an example illustrated in the film Unprecedented: The 2000 Presidential Election, where the contested ballots jeopardized the popular votes, allowing the elected officials to cast in their electoral votes, deciding the winning candidate (Perez, 2002).

For the most part, because the Electoral College officials stand to represent the votes of their respective states, it comes to stand that they represent the people of said states. Thus, the Electoral College is a necessary part of the democratic process. There are minor problems in the case of conflicts of interest, but once more, these occurrences are far and few. The elected officials usually honor the wishes of the populace, and the government tends to turn out well by them -- for the most part.

References

America.gov (2008). United States. USA Elections in Brief. Web. Retrieved 23 April 2011. < http://www.america.gov/publications/books/elections-in-brief.html>.

Neale, Thomas H. (2003, September). "The Electoral College: How It Works in Contemporary Presidential Elections." CRS Report for Congress.

Perez, Richard R., Sekler, Joan (Directors). (2002). Unprecedented: The 2000 Presidential Election [Web]. Available from

Short Answer Questions -- Part One

Question 1: Bill Passage and Obama's Deal

The problem with any bill being passed on to become a law is the fact that there is a huge risk of dissatisfaction in various branches of the government. Because of the numerous checks and balances, along with the judicial review and the presidential powers of vetoing, there will always be caveats regarding portions of a bill. The health reform bill contained additional stipulations that enabled the passing of the said bill. Because of the necessary compromises suggested by the members of Congress and the judicial board, the bill itself did not come out as effective as Obama had generally promised. Yet without these compromises, how long would the public have to wait until they actually saw the full bill signed?

Question 2: American Elections

Local and state elections are just as important as national elections. In fact, local and state elections tend to be more direct in impact in the neighborhood, more so than national elections do. It is important to be aware of what the local officials and the state officials are deciding…