Presidential еlections in the USA

In a tradition dating to Andrew Jackson's first inaugural in 1829, Presidents were previously installed at outdoor ceremonies at the East Front of the U.S. Capitol (facing the Supreme Court). Vice Presidents were customarily sworn in the Senate Chamber until 1933, when the two ceremonies were held jointly for the first time, a practice which continues.

On seven occasions since 1837, the presidential inaugural has been held elsewhere than the East Front. In 1909, due to inclement weather, William Howard Taft was installed in the Senate Chamber; in 1945, in consideration of the President's health and wartime security demands, Franklin D. Roosevelt was sworn in for his fourth term on the South Portico of the White House; in 1981, 1989, 1993, and 1997, Ronald Reagan, George Bush, and Bill Clinton were inaugurated at the West Front of the Capitol (facing the Mall); and in January 1985, due to inclement weather, President Reagan was publicly installed for his second term in the Capitol Rotunda. The West Front venue appears to have gained wide acceptance since 1981, and may be expected to continue to be the site of future inaugurals, barring unforeseen circumstances [8].

Conclusion

Having investigated and traced the history and evolution of the process of presidential elections in the United States of America we have come to the conclusion that it is rather complicated, extensive, well-organized but, of course, not perfect.

The system that governs the election of the President in the USA combines constitutional and statutory requirements, rules of the national and state political parties, political traditions, and contemporary developments and practices.

As initially prescribed by the Constitution, the election of the President was left to electors chosen by the states. Final authority for selecting the President still rests with the Electoral College, which comprises electors from each state equal in number to the state's total representation in the House and Senate. All but two states award electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis to the candidate with a plurality of the state's popular vote.

As we can infer from our research the process of electing the President is essentially divided into four stages: (1) the pre-nomination phase, in which candidates compete in state primary elections and caucuses for delegates to the national party conventions; (2) the national conventions - held in the summer of the election year - in which the two major parties nominate candidates for President and Vice President and ratify a platform of the parties' policy positions and goals; (3) the general election campaign, in which the major party nominees, as well as any minor party or independent contenders, compete for votes from the entire electorate, culminating in the popular vote on election day in November; and (4) the Electoral College phase, in which the President and Vice President are officially elected.

Our investigation proved that the contemporary Electoral College is a curious political institution. Obscure and even unknown to the average citizen, it serves as a crucial mechanism for transforming popular votes cast for President into electoral votes which actually elect the President. However, there are a lot of problems with respect to the Electoral College: for example, the phenomenon of the faithless elector, the existence of unrepresented territories. One more charge against the Electoral College points out that it is possible for a presidential candidate to win a plurality of the popular vote but to lose in the Electoral College. These problems and many others show that the system of the Electoral College is not perfect, and the question how to channel and organize the popular will remains open. Yet, it continues to exist as a central part of American Presidential electoral machinery.

From the information given above and our whole research we can make the conclusion that presidential elections in recent years differ in several important respects from those held earlier in American history. The first is the far wider participation of voters today in determining who the party nominees will be; the political parties have in recent years given a much greater role to party voters in the states in determining the nominees. The second difference involves the role of the electronic media and, most recently, the Internet, both in conveying information to the voters, and shaping the course of the campaign. Third, the financing of presidential campaigns is substantially governed by a system of public funding in the pre-nomination, convention, and general election phases. Thus, contemporary presidential elections in the USA blend both traditional aspects of law and practice and contemporary aspects of a larger, more complex, and more technologically advanced society.

Bibliography

1. Davidson, James West. Nation of nations: a narrative history of the American republic. - New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1990.

2. DiClerico, Robert E., Hammock, Allan S. Points of view: reading in American government and politics. - New York: Random House, Inc., 1989.

3. Holmes, Jack E. American government: essentials and perspectives. - New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1991.

4. Maisel, Louis Sandy. Parties and elections in America: the electoral process. - New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1993.

5. Patterson, Thomas. The American Democracy. - New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1993.

6. The World Book Encyclopedia. Volume 6: E - Chicago; London; Sydney; Toronto: World Book, Inc., 1995.

7. The World Book Encyclopedia. Volume 15: P - Chicago; London; Sydney; Toronto: World Book, Inc., 1995.

8. http:// en. wikipedia. org

9. http:// www. betterworldlinks. org

10. http:// www. britannica. com

11. http:// www. enchantedlearning. com

12. http:// www. ericdigest. org

13. http:// www. fairvote. org

Размещено на Allbest.ru