The Discrimination Of African Americans - 1837 Words

A nation with an infinitely diverse population, such as America, contains many minorities, but being a minority in A country has set backs. Being a minority comes with stereotypes and prejudice; although the majority faces prejudice too, it may not be as prevalent as prejudice towards the minority. Equality in America is on the rise, but most minorities face problems that they faced years ago. African-Americans, Latinos, Asians, Native Americans, and Cajuns have struggled in different ways while residing in the United States of America. African-American people have made many strides in American culture. They faced equality issues, enslavement, yet the culture still deals with prejudice and discrimination. African-Americans were also†¦show more content†¦Although the wealth gap between blacks and whites is still unbelievably big, African-American’s income and employment rates are steadily on the rise (Desilver) . African-American’s tend to move up in their same social class or completely move out of it. Even though African-Americans face prejudice and discrimination, they are not the only minority group to experience these issues. The Latino population in the United States of America continues to rise at a steady rate, but the minority faces extreme discrimination, for example, there are many subcultures within the Latino culture, but one may call all Latinos in America Mexicans. The United States government even created the term â€Å"Hispanic† to provide a name for a diverse population from the Spanish speaking culture (Carteret). According to the United States Department of Justice â€Å"Hispanic† is a race, but the Bureau of Census does not recognize it as a race (Carteret). Latino is how Americans from Mexico, Puerto Rico, South America, the Dominican Republic, and Cuba identify themselves.. Although the largest population of Latinos in America is the Mexican population (64.9%), there are about nine other cultures that have a distinct population in America (Motel and Patten). Puerto Ricans and Cubans make up the second and third largest Hispanic population in America. Even though all three of these countries speak Spanish, each one has its own vocabulary and accents. Puerto Ricans pride their culture in music, whereas

Alexander Hamilton’s Electoral College and the Modern Free Essays

Alexander Hamilton’s Electoral College and the Modern Election Alexander Hamilton’s Electoral College and the Modern Election Colin Campbell Prof. R Hurl TA: Matthew Lesch Tutorial: Thursday, 4:00 PM, UC 67) U. S. We will write a custom essay sample on Alexander Hamilton’s Electoral College and the Modern or any similar topic only for you Order Now Government and Politics (POL 208 Y1Y) 1 November 2012 Alexander Hamilton’s Electoral College and the Modern Election When American’s leaders assembled in Philadelphia in 1787, they originally had the goal of solving issues that had arisen from the Articles of Confederation, which had governed the young nation since separating from Britain. Instead, they drafted a completely new document that established a more permanent and effective central government. With it, they established the office of President of the United States. Rather than being directly elected by the people or selected by the legislature – as described by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers – the head of state was to be elected by an independent institution that existed solely for the purpose of finding a man who was up to the job: a group that would become known as the Electoral College. However, as the political nature of the country evolved in an unanticipated and partisan way, the independence of this body became increasingly irrelevant, resulting in a system which fails to meet the standards of a true modern democracy. Although the Electoral College system has never substantially been reformed, it is now a mere formality which leads to the types of campaigns which it was designed to prevent. In The Federalist, Number 68, Hamilton argues that the president should be elected by individuals selected exclusively for that purpose, rather than by an existing body or by national popular vote. Hamilton, par. 8) Although never named as such in this or any other constitutional document, this would be the basis for the institution now known as the Electoral College. Rather than submitting the national leaders-in-waiting to the rigors of campaigning, which would lead to what amounts to a popularity contest, the Founding Fathers believed that â€Å"a small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. † (par. 3) Unlike the Congress, however, the Electoral College would never meet as a single body. Each state’s electors would convene in their respective capitals, then send notice to Washington of their votes. Hamilton believed that keeping the electors apart would reduce corruption by making it more difficult for any one political faction to manipulate the contenders, allowing them to focus exclusively on serving the interests of their state. (par. 4) Furthermore, selecting the president through this independent body would mean that he is accountable solely to the people and not to a legislative body which could depose of him if the two branches were not in agreement. His re-election would not be controlled by legislative enemies and allies. (par. 6) Each state would be granted as many electors has they had seats in the House of Representatives and the Senate combined, effectively compromising between the preferred plans of either all states having equal weight (as they do in the Senate) or distributing power based on population (as it is in the House). If no candidate were to receive a majority of the votes, the House would convene to select the President from the top five candidates. par. 7) Hamilton wished for the vice-president to be elected by the same body and through the same method, except that the Senate would select the winner for this office if no candidate won a majority. (par. 9) He notes that this is one of the few aspects of the new constitution that received little dissent, and the final system was ultimately very similar to the one he described. The vice-presidency was, until the passage of the twelfth amendment in 1804, awarded t o the second place-candidate. However, this inherently resulted in a rival with opposing political views being first in line to the presidency, and therefore the system was changed to allow the electors to vote for both positions separately. (Nardulli 23) Each state is free to determine how its electors are selected, and various models have been used in the past. At the time of enactment, however, several assumptions about the system were made that would quickly prove to be untrue. It was generally believed that electors would selected from individual districts in a manner similar to congressmen, would exercise personal judgement when voting. It was also believed that they would frequently endorse candidates from their home state, ultimately meaning that no candidate would win a majority and that Congress would determine the victors from a short list of candidates. (41) Some states appointed their electors legislatively rather than through election, meaning that voters did not cast a ballot for either the president or the Electoral College. The emergence of organized political parties by the third election in 1796 led to nationally coordinated campaigns that severely reduced the number of expected candidates, and thus the likelihood that no one would achieve a majority. 44) The results of the 2000 election between George Bush and Al Gore – in which Gore won the popular vote but narrowly lost the Electoral College after a controversial recount in Florida – highlight what is the largest criticism of the Electoral College: it is possible for a candidate to win the Presidency without winning the popular vote. Be cause less populous states have more electoral votes per capita than larger states, individual votes are disproportionately stronger. (Bennett 9) Detractors of the College claim that this is inherently undemocratic, as all votes should be considered equal in a true democracy. Final victors have only lost the popular vote on two other occasions (in 1876 and 1888), and there has therefore never been substantial support for re-examining the system until 2000. Although the disproportionate power of smaller states has been commonly criticized, it is in fact the winner-take-all method in which states pledge their electoral votes that is responsible for discrepancies with the popular vote. It is currently possible a candidate to win the presidency by only winning as little as eleven states. He could win by a single vote in each of these states, but lose by a significant margin in every other state, yet his electoral count would still indicate him as the majority winner. Five of the seven elections between 1964 and 1988 were won by significant margins in the Electoral College. On each occasion, the winning candidate took at least forty states while barely winning more than 60% of the popular vote. This was most pronounced in the 1984 race between Ronald Reagan and Walter Mondale. The latter received 40% of the popular vote, yet received the electoral votes from Minnesota and D. C. Furthermore, in 1968 (when some states were won by independent candidate George Wallace) Richard Nixon and Hubert Humphrey both won approximately 43% of the popular vote, yet Nixon won the election outright with 56% of the Electoral College. (Bennett 37-42) While none of these instances resulted in the popular vote being overruled, they do demonstrate that elections are not a matter of getting the most people to vote for you, but rather the importance of getting the most people in the right places. Analysts have suggested that his year’s race between President Obama and Governor Romney could produce a first for the Electoral College: a tie. Although unlikely, this cycle’s set of swing states, along with the states that each candidate is presumed to win, allows for a specific combination of votes wherein each candidate would receive 269 electoral votes. While the college has failed to produce a winner in the past, it has always been due to the presence of a third-part y candidate. It is also predicted that Republicans will retain control of the House, while the Democrats will continue to hold the Senate. Should the electoral votes come to a tie, these two chambers would be responsible for selecting the President and Vice-President, respectively. Assuming each party would support its nominee, the result would be a Romney-Biden government. (Hamby) Not since the twelfth amendment was passed have opponents been simultaneously elected to the lead the executive. While such a scenario is mathematically rare, it is absurd that a system of government would allow for such a possibility. Despite the counterintuitive relationship that the Electoral College has with the popular vote, there are some key benefits to keeping the system. It emphasizes the federal nature of the United States; that it is not just a monolithic country, but rather a federation of sovereign governments. Indeed, the fact this is found in the fact that each state is free to select their electors any way they choose (through legislative appointment, districts, or winner-take-all). Most states (the exceptions being Maine and Nebraska) use the winner-take-all model to maximize their influence. If they were to be allocating their electors proportionally in a close race, opposing electors would essentially cancel each other out. Nardulli 28) Furthermore, guaranteeing a certain amount of power to each region ensures that it’s power will not be reduced based on local factors such as bad weather. For example, even if New Jersey experiences very low voter turn-out because of Hurricane Sandy, those that do manage to get to the polls will still be able to exercise its fourteen electoral votes on behalf of the state. The real problems with the E lectoral College do not stem from the mathematic anomalies and misrepresentations, but rather because it serves a political culture that Alexander Hamilton had not envisioned. He explicitly states that it is meant to find the best man for the job, rather than subjecting the country to tumultuous elections. In modern times, however, electors are designated by their political parties, usually legally bound to vote for a particular candidate, and not even named on the ballot. It is no longer independent individuals who actually consider all possible candidates, but instead a mere rubber-stamp for the will of the electorate. Bennett 55) The Electoral College system envisioned by Alexander Hamilton was designed to be independent of the usual partisanship, with the principle goal of finding an individual who would best be suited as the country’s chief administrator and head of state. While it still has the arguable benefit of forcing candidates to pay attention to less populous states, its members are effectively bound to follow the will of their constituents and are therefore unable to fulfill the intended mandate of their position. Works Cited Bennett, Robert. Taming the Electoral College. Palo Alto CA: Stanford University Press, 2006. Hamby, Peter. â€Å"Electoral College Tie Possible in Obama-Romney Race. † CNN. com. Cable News Network, 30 July 2012. Retrieved 29 October 2012. http://www. cnn. com/2012/07/26/politics/electoral-college-tie/index. html Hamilton, Alexander. The Federalist Papers: Number 68. 1788. Retrieved 29 October 2012. http://avalon. law. yale. edu/18th_century/fed68. asp Nardulli, Peter. Popular Efficacy in the Democratic Era. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007. How to cite Alexander Hamilton’s Electoral College and the Modern, Essay examples

The Day They Burned the Books free essay sample

Rhys was involved in three different marriages and began writing after a near fatal abortion. She began to write some of her greatest pieces after moving in with English writer Ford Madox Ford who also convinced her to change her name to Jean Rhys. She died May 14, 1979 with a somewhat unhappy state of mind. English writer Ford Madox Ford was one of the first writers to discover Jean Rhys’s literary significance. He praised her for â€Å"singular instinct for form,† and also noticed that the fact that she was an outsider gave her a very unique viewpoint. Jean Rhys was always the underdog and most of her background showed through in her stories. Her contribution to English literature came from her childhood. She showed what she had been through growing up in the West Indies, and the things she had seen. She then portrayed these certain things through out several of her stories. We will write a custom essay sample on The Day They Burned the Books or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page Her stories reflect outsiders who come back with a sense of dominance and independence. Regardless of the things she had seen and been through she still came out on top. Jean Rhys’s short story â€Å"The Day They Burned the Books,† is set in the Dominican Republic in the 1900’s just before the world war one. Economic times were very trying during this time and extremely hard on the people who lived there. The narrator seems to take the role of Jean Rhys as a young, naive child who is experiencing everything first hand. This story seems to reflect Rhys’s life very well. The different themes consisted of racism, unkindness of love, self-acceptance, and many more. Racism was a big theme that showed exactly how Rhys grew up. Self-Acceptance was also a major theme. Rhys was never accepted and was known as the outcast. She was criticized for the way she talked which is shown in her writing. She purposely adds in grammatical errors to show that the narrator was a young child. The story also shows an unhappy marriage and the hate that can form between two people. I believe that Rhys is simply showing an insight of her childhood and the things she had to see as a child growing up in the West Indies. After researching Jean Rhys’s I grew very fond of her and her writing. It takes a lot to be ridiculed as a child and made into an outcast, and to snap back from that and make something of yourself. Her whole life she was told she was always doing something wrong, she witnessed forms of racism that we today aren’t used too anymore. When teachers told her and her parents she couldn’t speak proper English she turned around and through it back in their face. I love the sense of power she brings in her writings. It’s her way of showing the world despite what everyone said she made it, and became a major part of literary history. The way she adds grammatical errors to her writing is her way of making a mockery of what her teachers told her. She was the outcast that made something of herself. In an interview she had shortly before her death she made the comment that if she could go back and choose whether to be happy or write, she would choose to be happy. It makes you wonder if the only reason she started to writing was to prove to everyone and herself that she was good enough. Either way I believe that Jean Rhys and her short stories are powerful and god enough.