Introduction
Political voting in America has declined today, for the reason that the level of articulate elite and mass political behavior has changed. However, this was not always the case in American politics. For most voters, the physical sense of casting a ballot was the juncture of an extended period of campaign activity. The election day was a day of excitement for American voters in which Americans participated in countless political meetings, parades, and bonfires. The American sense of public-minded self-government emerged when people felt dominated by government officials. In that epoch, voting was defended openly, while placing a premium on the practice of independent citizenship. It was this sense of independence that implied the right to serve in the militia with a consequence of the corollary of ‘voting alone’ in the military service deep-rooted in the public’s mind that in 1791, criticism began on the national government’s prolonged debates over the whole question of exemptions from military service (Cultice, 1992, p. 17). This practice, if adopted, would mean that apprentices and miners should be debarred from the privilege of bearing arms in defense of their country. The selection of officers was conducted as it had been during the American Revolution, and various governors were induced to appoint those who would do well in the next election. The importance attached to elections outweighed all other considerations too such an extent that the governors succeeded in forcing the government to grant from active service to enable the military men to get back home to vote. However, a common man at that time felt alone in the voting booth, for the military and officials were engaged in war.
Main body
The sense of public mindedness can be recaptured if people are given the freedom to politicize or control the uncertainty in American politics. Uncertainty arises when the same president is reelected, as well as for the president’s ability to achieve public policy goals. One of the political problems facing the nation was that too many members of Congress became impatient when something they wanted to be done was not achieved instantly. To get instant action, they then sought ways to circumvent the Constitution and were convinced that the proposal that Senator Kennedy had sent to each member of the Senate was a clear evasion of the Constitution and an attempt to circumvent the Constitution. Getting away from the constitutional government was just like opening the door to the loss of individual liberty. Therefore, government frame-setters created a representative system to protect individual democracy, not limited to the government, but the public-minded character. In the course of creation, the government later realized that through this fragmentation, power has only shifted from the frame-setters to the office-holders, therefore a reflection of more fundamental transformations in economic structures and social relationships, began to shape up the pivotal arena in which the battles over the future of the republic were started playing out. Although the representative system they created, draws distinct lines between the defenders of equality and injustice and the forces of privilege and self-interest, in short between moral democracy and dishonest politicians. But this picture dominated accounts of the political history of the old age, where parliamentary and presidential systems supported autocracy. American government powers were never as corrupted as in this stance it was claimed, and reformers, professional administrators, and technical experts always commanded significant authority and impact on decision-making processes (Goebel, 2002, p. 25). Hence, party mobilization and fragmentation provided efficient but dominant means to develop and institutionalize democracy, after which history revealed that political machines were never as powerful and monolithic as the clamor of reformers would have one belief and that the fiscal and economic policies conducted by machine politicians and upper-class officials did not often greatly differ.
The fragmentation of the government framework led to divisions and uncertainty in American politics but remained unable to immediately form political parties. However, the exercise of public power by the end of the eighteenth century emerged in political differences which, began to occur towards the Federal role of the Government. Thus by 1800, when the first national parties, the Federalists and Republicans were organized in Congress, the politicians who organized the first political parties realized that being democratic, the Constitution fragmented political power within and among the institutions of government perceive parties as a mechanism for organizing political choices (Lees et al, 1985, p. 70).
By fragmenting the government structure, the framers of our Government initiated a new transformation that was hindered by the executive and judicial power. This transformation profoundly disoriented formerly successful party leaders and activists entrenched in the ‘old politics and under the rules of the old electoral order, various strategies bypassing local party structures, ignored established group alliances, and building campaign coalitions from scratch (Libey, 2000, p. 50). It should have proven disastrous, shunned by leaders and voters alike but instead, through these strategies it was gained a place on the democratic ticket. Though at first dismissed by some as anomalies, these successes became models for future American politics. The world of American elections changed and challenging party leaders and activists understood and respond or face irrelevance and extinction.
Today, our youth is so much fatigued by the contemporary political scenario that it is suffering political catharsis and in the name of democracy is no longer alone in the voting booth. What we witness is the political interest underlying every election, which is the name of democracy have its economic interests. Representative elites argue that the federal courts are also capable of threatening the individual’s liberties. However, Congress and the president have ample disciplinary powers over the federal judiciary, but the difficulties of constructing congressional majorities frustrated the Supreme Court for majority rule. Nevertheless, the American political system represents a careful balance between democratic norms and constitutional limitations on authoritarian impulses. Rather than existing as a deviant institution, the federal courts are an essential element in a liberal democracy. Even if the due process does not guarantee access to a federal court to vindicate constitutional claims, legislation that alters or threatens the delicate balance of governmental power is constitutionally suspect (Keynes & Miller, 1989, p. 7).
Conclusion
We have been in a gridlock situation, were recapturing the sense of public mindedness is difficult but not impossible. The political corruption for which we have witnessed has not only focused on fraudulent acts that distorted election results but on electioneering techniques such as campaign expenditures, vote-buying, and so on. These campaign practices are responsible for distorting the image in public eyes because these practices have offended observers who thought that voters should cast their votes strictly based on the issues involved in a campaign. There is a need to regain public confidence, which means the confidence in seeing a successful democracy, but we are unable to move because an impartial judiciary stands ready to enforce the rules of the political game and restore equilibrium to the political system, a powerful task for the least dangerous branch of government.
Work Cited
Cultice W. Wendell, (1992) Youth’s Battle for the Ballot: A History of Voting Age in America: Greenwood Press: New York.
Goebel Thomas, A Government by the People: Direct Democracy in America, 1890-1940: University of North Carolina Press: Chapel Hill, NC, 2002.
Keynes Edward & Miller K. Randall, (1989) The Court vs. Congress: Prayer, Busing, and Abortion: Duke University Press: Durham, NC.
Lees John David, Maidment A. Richard & Tappin Michael, American Politics Today: Manchester University Press, 1985.
Libey David, Menefee, The Triumph of Campaign-centered Politics: Chatham House Publishers: New York, 2000.